Case Name: Walter Raymond RICKARDS, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Robert J. KUPEC; Attorney General for the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-08-02
Citations: 140 F. App'x 481
Docket Number: No. 05-6031
Parties: Walter Raymond RICKARDS, Jr., Petitioner—Appellant, v. Robert J. KUPEC; Attorney General for the State of Maryland, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 140
Pages: 481–481

Head Matter:
Walter Raymond RICKARDS, Jr., Petitioner—Appellant, v. Robert J. KUPEC; Attorney General for the State of Maryland, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 05-6031.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 27, 2005.
Decided: Aug. 2, 2005.
Walter Raymond Rickards, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, Ann Norman Bosse, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Walter Raymond Rickards, Jr., a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. This order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1); see Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 368-69, 374 n. 7 (4th Cir.2004). 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 reasonable jurists would find that the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable and that any dispositive procedural findings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. 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 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Rickards 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