Case Name: Troy Vincent OAKES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. ED WRIGHT, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-10-21
Citations: 146 F. App'x 662
Docket Number: No. 05-6943
Parties: Troy Vincent OAKES, Petitioner—Appellant, v. ED WRIGHT, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 146
Pages: 662–663

Head Matter:
Troy Vincent OAKES, Petitioner—Appellant, v. ED WRIGHT, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 05-6943.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 18, 2005.
Decided: Oct. 21, 2005.
Troy Vincent Oakes, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Thomas Judge, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Troy Vincent Oakes, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing 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 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, 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 Oakes 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