Case Name: Timothy J. LEVI, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Samuel PRUETT, Warden of JRCC; Gene Johnson, Director of Department of Corrections, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-10-21
Citations: 146 F. App'x 652
Docket Number: No. 05-6779
Parties: Timothy J. LEVI, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Samuel PRUETT, Warden of JRCC; Gene Johnson, Director of Department of Corrections, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 146
Pages: 652–653

Head Matter:
Timothy J. LEVI, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Samuel PRUETT, Warden of JRCC; Gene Johnson, Director of Department of Corrections, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 05-6779.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 26, 2005.
Decided Oct. 21, 2005.
Timothy J. Levi, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Timothy J. Levi seeks to appeal from the district court's order denying relief on 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 dem onstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims is 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, 336-38, 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, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Levi has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny the motion for 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