Case Name: Bobby Joe LEONARD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. S.K. YOUNG, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-11-28
Citations: 155 F. App'x 665
Docket Number: No. 05-6980
Parties: Bobby Joe LEONARD, Petitioner—Appellant, v. S.K. YOUNG, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 155
Pages: 665–665

Head Matter:
Bobby Joe LEONARD, Petitioner—Appellant, v. S.K. YOUNG, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 05-6980.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 17, 2005.
Decided: Nov. 28, 2005.
Bobby Joe Leonard, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen R. McCullough, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Bobby Joe Leonard seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus 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 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 the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims is 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, 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 Leonard 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