Case Name: Dwight David LEWIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Alton BASKERVILLE, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-08-17
Citations: 141 F. App'x 172
Docket Number: No. 05-6087
Parties: Dwight David LEWIS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Alton BASKERVILLE, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 141
Pages: 172–173

Head Matter:
Dwight David LEWIS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Alton BASKERVILLE, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 05-6087.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 27, 2005.
Decided: Aug. 17, 2005.
Dwight David Lewis, Appellant pro se. Susan Foster Barr, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MICHAEL and TRAXLER, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Dwight Lewis seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition in which he alleged that his sentence was calculated incorrectly. An appeal may not be taken 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 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 Lewis 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