Case Name: Tyrone WILSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Warden Anthony, Lee Correctional Institution; Henry McMaster, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-09-23
Citations: 110 F. App'x 309
Docket Number: No. 04-6965
Parties: Tyrone WILSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Warden Anthony, Lee Correctional Institution; Henry McMaster, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 110
Pages: 309–310

Head Matter:
Tyrone WILSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Warden Anthony, Lee Correctional Institution; Henry McMaster, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 04-6965.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 16, 2004.
Decided Sept. 23, 2004.
Tyrone Wilson, Appellant pro se. Melody Jane Brown, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Tyrone Wilson seeks to appeal the district court's order 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 certifícate 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, 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 Wilson 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