Case Name: Willie J. OWENS, Petitioner- Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Charles Molony Condon, Attorney General, State of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-07-29
Citations: 329 F. App'x 492
Docket Number: No. 09-6468
Parties: Willie J. OWENS, Petitioner— Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Charles Molony Condon, Attorney General, State of South Carolina, Respondents — Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 329
Pages: 492–493

Head Matter:
Willie J. OWENS, Petitioner— Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Charles Molony Condon, Attorney General, State of South Carolina, Respondents — Appellees.
No. 09-6468.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 23, 2009.
Decided: July 29, 2009.
Willie J. Owens, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Willie J. Owens seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. 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 Owens has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of ap-pealability 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.