Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lloyd Patrick WALTERS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-11-08
Citations: 112 F. App'x 296
Docket Number: No. 04-6995
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lloyd Patrick WALTERS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WIDENER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 112
Pages: 296–297

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lloyd Patrick WALTERS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-6995.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 13, 2004.
Decided: Nov. 8, 2004.
Lloyd Patrick Walters, Appellant pro se.
Gina Laurie Simms, Office of the United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER, TRAXLER, and KING, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Lloyd Patrick Walters appeals from the district court's orders denying his motions for reconsideration, or in the alternative, for a certificate of appealability. Walters also moves in this Court for a certificate of appealability. 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 habeas 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, 326, 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 Walters has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal, and deny Walters' motion for a certificate of appealability. 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