Case Name: Avis Leon COBB, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, WALLEN'S RIDGE STATE PRISON, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-08-30
Citations: 142 F. App'x 181
Docket Number: No. 04-7388
Parties: Avis Leon COBB, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, WALLEN'S RIDGE STATE PRISON, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before TRAXLER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 142
Pages: 181–182

Head Matter:
Avis Leon COBB, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, WALLEN'S RIDGE STATE PRISON, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 04-7388.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 25, 2005.
Decided: Aug. 30, 2005.
Avis Leon Cobb, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Andrew Witmer, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before TRAXLER and SHEDD, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Avis Leon Cobb seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his petition 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 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 Cobb 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