Case Name: Ephrain RELIFORD, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jon E. OZMINT, Director of South Carolina Department of Corrections; Henry McMaster, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-08-04
Citations: 103 F. App'x 764
Docket Number: No. 04-6289
Parties: Ephrain RELIFORD, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jon E. OZMINT, Director of South Carolina Department of Corrections; Henry McMaster, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 103
Pages: 764–765

Head Matter:
Ephrain RELIFORD, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jon E. OZMINT, Director of South Carolina Department of Corrections; Henry McMaster, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 04-6289.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 26, 2004.
Decided: Aug. 4, 2004.
Ephrain Reliford, Jr., Appellant pro se.
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Ephrain Reliford, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) and motion to reconsider. The orders are not appealable 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 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, 336-38, 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 Reliford 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