Case Name: Irvin Emanuel COLEMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-06-26
Citations: 69 F. App'x 163
Docket Number: No. 03-6723
Parties: Irvin Emanuel COLEMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, KING and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 69
Pages: 163–163

Head Matter:
Irvin Emanuel COLEMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 03-6723.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted June 19, 2003.
Decided June 26, 2003.
Irvin Emanuel Coleman, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Andrew Witmer, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, KING and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Irvin Emanuel Coleman, a state prisoner, 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 § 2254 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 for claims addressed by a district court 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, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1040, 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 Coleman has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, 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.