Case Name: Antonio D. TISDALE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-06-08
Citations: 382 F. App'x 259
Docket Number: No. 09-7920
Parties: Antonio D. TISDALE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 382
Pages: 259–260

Head Matter:
Antonio D. TISDALE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 09-7920.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 17, 2010.
Decided: June 8, 2010.
Antonio D. Tisdale, Appellant Pro Se. Derrick K. McFarland, South Carolina Budget and Control Board, Columbia, South Carolina, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Antonio D. Tisdale seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appeal-ability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. 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, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Tisdale has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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.