Case Name: Henry Eric HAMILTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jame V. PEGUESE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-06-10
Citations: 100 F. App'x 887
Docket Number: No. 03-7790
Parties: Henry Eric HAMILTON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Jame V. PEGUESE, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 100
Pages: 887–887

Head Matter:
Henry Eric HAMILTON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Jame V. PEGUESE, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 03-7790.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 30, 2004.
Decided: June 10, 2004.
Henry Eric Hamilton, Appellant pro se.
Ann Norman Bosse, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Henry Eric Hamilton appeals from the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition by the district court. An appeal may not be taken to this court from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that jurists of reason would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001).
We have reviewed the record and Hamilton's submissions and conclude that he has not made the requisite showing. We therefore deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid in the decisional process.
DISMISSED