Case Name: Elwood Rodney BUMBRAY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ronald J. ANGELONE, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-08-06
Citations: 71 F. App'x 220
Docket Number: No. 02-6554
Parties: Elwood Rodney BUMBRAY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ronald J. ANGELONE, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before LUTTIG and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 71
Pages: 220–221

Head Matter:
Elwood Rodney BUMBRAY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ronald J. ANGELONE, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 02-6554.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted July 15, 2003.
Decided Aug. 6, 2003.
Elwood Rodney Bumbray, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Carson Vorhis, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before LUTTIG and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Elwood R. Bumbray seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is appealable only if 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 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 Bumbray 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 be fore the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.