Case Name: Anthony MCQUEEN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. J. DUNNING, Sheriff of Alexandria City Jail; United States Attorneys for the Eastern District of Virginia; Paul Ebert, Commonwealth's Attorney of Prince William City, Respondents-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-02-02
Citations: 120 F. App'x 479
Docket Number: No. 04-7349, 04-7520
Parties: Anthony MCQUEEN, Petitioner—Appellant, v. J. DUNNING, Sheriff of Alexandria City Jail; United States Attorneys for the Eastern District of Virginia; Paul Ebert, Commonwealth’s Attorney of Prince William City, Respondents—Appellee.
Judges: Before LUTTIG and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 120
Pages: 479–480

Head Matter:
Anthony MCQUEEN, Petitioner—Appellant, v. J. DUNNING, Sheriff of Alexandria City Jail; United States Attorneys for the Eastern District of Virginia; Paul Ebert, Commonwealth’s Attorney of Prince William City, Respondents—Appellee.
No. 04-7349, 04-7520.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 27, 2005.
Decided: Feb. 2, 2005.
Anthony McQueen, Appellant pro se.
Before LUTTIG and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Anthony McQueen, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's orders dismissing without prejudice his habeas corpus petition and denying his motion for appointment of counsel and to place the case in abeyance pending the outcome in his criminal proceeding. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus 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 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, 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 independently reviewed the record and conclude that McQueen has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny McQueen's motions for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeals. 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