Case Name: Michael BONHOM, Sr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ronald J. ANGELONE, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-06-30
Citations: 101 F. App'x 909
Docket Number: No. 03-7503
Parties: Michael BONHOM, Sr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ronald J. ANGELONE, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 101
Pages: 909–910

Head Matter:
Michael BONHOM, Sr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ronald J. ANGELONE, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 03-7503.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 26, 2004.
Decided: June 30, 2004.
Michael Bonhom, Sr., Appellant pro se.
Donald Eldridge Jeffrey, III, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before: LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Michael Bonhom, Sr., seeks to appeal the district court's order 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 substan tial 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 Bonhom 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