Case Name: Devin Lanard PHILLIPS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. A.D. ROBINSON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-07-09
Citations: 67 F. App'x 840
Docket Number: No. 03-6177
Parties: Devin Lanard PHILLIPS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. A.D. ROBINSON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 67
Pages: 840–840

Head Matter:
Devin Lanard PHILLIPS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. A.D. ROBINSON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 03-6177.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted June 27, 2003.
Decided July 9, 2003.
Devin Lanard Phillips, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Mozley Harris, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Devin Lanard Phillips, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). 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) (2200). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court 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 both 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 Phillips 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.