Case Name: Etien Brook BANKSTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden ANTHONY, Warden of Kershaw Correctional Institution; Charles M. Condon, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-12-01
Citations: 113 F. App'x 573
Docket Number: No. 04-7449
Parties: Etien Brook BANKSTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden ANTHONY, Warden of Kershaw Correctional Institution; Charles M. Condon, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before LUTTIG and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 113
Pages: 573–573

Head Matter:
Etien Brook BANKSTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden ANTHONY, Warden of Kershaw Correctional Institution; Charles M. Condon, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 04-7449.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 18, 2004.
Decided: Dec. 1, 2004.
Etien Brook Bankston, Appellant pro se.
Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before LUTTIG and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Etien Brook Bankston appeals from the denial of relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. 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 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 jurists of reason 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 reviewed the record and conclude that Bankston has not made the requisite showing. We, therefore, 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 in the decisional process.
DISMISSED