Case Name: Ray BELTRAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of NORTH CAROLINA; Theodis Beck, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-12-20
Citations: 115 F. App'x 175
Docket Number: No. 04-7081
Parties: Ray BELTRAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of NORTH CAROLINA; Theodis Beck, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 115
Pages: 175–176

Head Matter:
Ray BELTRAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of NORTH CAROLINA; Theodis Beck, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 04-7081.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 25, 2004.
Decided: Dec. 20, 2004.
Ray Beltran, Appellant pro se.
Clarence Joe DelForge, III, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Before MOTZ, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Ray Beltran seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommenda tion of the magistrate judge and 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) (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 Beltran 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