Case Name: Julio Henri BONDI, a/k/a Danny Campen, Petitioner - Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Charles M. Condon, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-03-29
Citations: 124 F. App'x 203
Docket Number: No. 04-7697
Parties: Julio Henri BONDI, a/k/a Danny Campen, Petitioner — Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Charles M. Condon, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents — Appellees.
Judges: Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 124
Pages: 203–204

Head Matter:
Julio Henri BONDI, a/k/a Danny Campen, Petitioner — Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Charles M. Condon, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents — Appellees.
No. 04-7697.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 24, 2005.
Decided: March 29, 2005.
Julio Henri Bondi, Appellant pro se.
Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, William Edgar Salter, III, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WIDENER 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Julio Henri Bondi, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on 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 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 or wrong 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 Bondi 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