Case Name: Vernon ANDREWS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gary MAYNARD, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections; Charles M. Condon, Attorney General of South Carolina; Colie Rushton, Warden of McCormick Correctional Institution, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-03-31
Citations: 91 F. App'x 298
Docket Number: No. 03-7752
Parties: Vernon ANDREWS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gary MAYNARD, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections; Charles M. Condon, Attorney General of South Carolina; Colie Rushton, Warden of McCormick Correctional Institution, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before TRAXLER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 91
Pages: 298–299

Head Matter:
Vernon ANDREWS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gary MAYNARD, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections; Charles M. Condon, Attorney General of South Carolina; Colie Rushton, Warden of McCormick Correctional Institution, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 03-7752.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 25, 2004.
Decided: March 31, 2004.
Vernon Andrews, Appellant pro se.
Derrick K. McFarland, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before TRAXLER, KING, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Vernon Andrews seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is 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 substan tial 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 Andrews 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