Case Name: Kevin Lee WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, G.R.C.C., Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-09-21
Citations: 109 F. App'x 575
Docket Number: No. 04-6695
Parties: Kevin Lee WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, G.R.C.C., Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 109
Pages: 575–576

Head Matter:
Kevin Lee WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, G.R.C.C., Respondent-Appellee.
No. 04-6695.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 16, 2004.
Decided: Sept. 21, 2004.
Kevin Lee Williams, Appellant pro se.
Donald Eldridge Jeffrey, III, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Kevin Lee Williams seeks to appeal from the district court's order finding that Williams had not exhausted his state remedies and dismissing without prejudice his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is not appealable 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 substan tial 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, 336-38, 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 Williams 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