Case Name: Kam Richard CARPENTER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Sidney HARKLEROAD, Superintendent, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-06-14
Citations: 185 F. App'x 252
Docket Number: No. 06-6022
Parties: Kam Richard CARPENTER, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Sidney HARKLEROAD, Superintendent, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before KING and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 185
Pages: 252–253

Head Matter:
Kam Richard CARPENTER, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Sidney HARKLEROAD, Superintendent, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 06-6022.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 19, 2006.
Decided: June 14, 2006.
Kam Richard Carpenter, Appellant Pro Se.
Before KING and GREGORY, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Kam Richard Carpenter moves for a certificate of appealability, seeking review of the district court's order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). 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 for claims addressed by a district court 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 both 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, 338, 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 Carpenter has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny the motion for 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.