Case Name: William Harold PEOPLES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of NORTH CAROLINA; Arthur F. Beeler, Warden, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-08-22
Citations: 71 F. App'x 993
Docket Number: No. 03-6959
Parties: William Harold PEOPLES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of NORTH CAROLINA; Arthur F. Beeler, Warden, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 71
Pages: 993–994

Head Matter:
William Harold PEOPLES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of NORTH CAROLINA; Arthur F. Beeler, Warden, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 03-6959.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 14, 2003.
Decided Aug. 22, 2003.
William Harold Peoples, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
William H. Peoples seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. Peoples cannot appeal this order unless a circuit judge or justice issues a certificate of appealability, and 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). An appellant meets this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists 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, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1039, 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.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941, 122 S.Ct. 318, 151 L.Ed.2d 237 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Peoples has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 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 the decisional process.
DISMISSED.