Case Name: Johnathan Lee X SMITH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. VIRGINIA PAROLE BOARD; Ronald J. Angelone, Director; Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-05-18
Citations: 96 F. App'x 905
Docket Number: No. 03-7942
Parties: Johnathan Lee X SMITH, Petitioner—Appellant, v. VIRGINIA PAROLE BOARD; Ronald J. Angelone, Director; Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 96
Pages: 905–906

Head Matter:
Johnathan Lee X SMITH, Petitioner—Appellant, v. VIRGINIA PAROLE BOARD; Ronald J. Angelone, Director; Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 03-7942.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted May 13, 2004.
Decided May 18, 2004.
Johnathan Lee X Smith, Appellant pro se. Richard Carson Vorhis, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Johnathan Lee X Smith seeks to appeal the magistrate judge's order denying re lief 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 Smith 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
The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000).