Case Name: John Jeffries LISANICK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene JOHNSON, Director of VDOC, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-11-30
Citations: 114 F. App'x 98
Docket Number: No. 04-7073
Parties: John Jeffries LISANICK, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gene JOHNSON, Director of VDOC, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 114
Pages: 98–99

Head Matter:
John Jeffries LISANICK, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gene JOHNSON, Director of VDOC, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 04-7073.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 15, 2004.
Decided Nov. 30, 2004.
John Jeffries Lisanick, Appellant pro se.
William W. Muse, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and KING, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
John Jeffries Lisanick appeals from the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition by the district court. 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) (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 jurists of reason 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 reviewed the record and conclude that Lisanick has not made the requisite showing. We therefore 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