Case Name: THIET VAN PHAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Daniel BRAXTON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-08-08
Citations: 141 F. App'x 138
Docket Number: Nos. 04-7665, 05-6187
Parties: THIET VAN PHAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Daniel BRAXTON, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 141
Pages: 138–138

Head Matter:
THIET VAN PHAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Daniel BRAXTON, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
Nos. 04-7665, 05-6187.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted July 15, 2005.
Decided Aug. 8, 2005.
Thiet Van Phan, Appellant Pro Se. John H. McLees, Jr., Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MICHAEL and KING, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
In these consolidated appeals, Thiet Van Phan seeks to appeal the magistrate judge's orders denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) and denying Phan's motion for reconsideration. These orders are 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 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 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, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Phan has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeals. 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