Case Name: Lunzell VENABLE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent-Appellee; Lunzell Venable, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-09-16
Citations: 109 F. App'x 554
Docket Number: Nos. 04-7023, 04-7060
Parties: Lunzell VENABLE, Petitioner—Appellant, v. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent—Appellee. Lunzell Venable, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 109
Pages: 554–555

Head Matter:
Lunzell VENABLE, Petitioner—Appellant, v. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent—Appellee. Lunzell Venable, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.
Nos. 04-7023, 04-7060.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 9, 2004.
Decided Sept. 16, 2004.
Lunzell Venable, Appellant pro se.
Steven Andrew Witmer, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
In these consolidated appeals, Lunzell Venable seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) and denying his motion for appointment of counsel. The orders are appealable only if a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(l)(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 his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dis-positive 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 Venable has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Venable's motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Venable's motion for appointment of counsel. 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