Case Name: Anthony Rumont ROBERTS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, WARDEN, NOTTOWAY CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-03-31
Citations: 91 F. App'x 288
Docket Number: No. 03-7770
Parties: Anthony Rumont ROBERTS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, WARDEN, NOTTOWAY CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before TRAXLER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 91
Pages: 288–288

Head Matter:
Anthony Rumont ROBERTS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, WARDEN, NOTTOWAY CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 03-7770.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted March 25, 2004.
Decided March 31, 2004.
Anthony Rumont Roberts, Appellant pro se.
Michael Thomas Judge, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before TRAXLER, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Anthony Rumont Roberts, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition, and a subsequent order denying his motion for reconsideration. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus 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, 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 Roberts 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