Case Name: James M. DEBARDELEBEN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Robert A. HOOD, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-10-20
Citations: 145 F. App'x 841
Docket Number: No. 05-6726
Parties: James M. DEBARDELEBEN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Robert A. HOOD, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 145
Pages: 841–842

Head Matter:
James M. DEBARDELEBEN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Robert A. HOOD, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 05-6726.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 18, 2005.
Decided Oct. 20, 2005.
James M. DeBardeleben, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
James M. DeBardeleben seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); Jones v. Braxton, 392 F.3d 683, 688 (4th Cir.2004). A certificate of appeal-ability 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 both that the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. 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 DeBardeleben has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certifícate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. No active judge of this court has voted to grant hearing en banc; therefore, we deny DeBardeleben's petition for initial hearing en banc. 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