Case Name: Thomas Eugene LANGSTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. D.A. BRAXTON, Warden, Red Onion State Prison, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-10-17
Citations: 78 F. App'x 258
Docket Number: No. 03-6674
Parties: Thomas Eugene LANGSTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. D.A. BRAXTON, Warden, Red Onion State Prison, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 78
Pages: 258–258

Head Matter:
Thomas Eugene LANGSTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. D.A. BRAXTON, Warden, Red Onion State Prison, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 03-6674.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 26, 2003.
Decided Oct. 17, 2003.
Thomas Eugene Langston, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Thomas E. Langston seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) motion. Langston cannot appeal this order unless a circuit judge or justice issues a certifícate of appealability, and 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). An appellant meets 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, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1039, 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.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941, 122 S.Ct. 318, 151 L.Ed.2d 237 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Langston has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Langston's 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.
In his informal brief to this court, Langston requests authorization to file a second petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). Having construed this informal brief as a motion for authorization, see United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir.2003), we conclude that, under the strictures of that statute, Langston is not entitled to such authorization.