Case Name: Bruce E. HARMESON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Joseph P. SACCHET, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-06-13
Citations: 64 F. App'x 908
Docket Number: No. 03-6030
Parties: Bruce E. HARMESON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Joseph P. SACCHET, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 64
Pages: 908–908

Head Matter:
Bruce E. HARMESON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Joseph P. SACCHET, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 03-6030.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted May 30, 2003.
Decided June 13, 2003.
Bruce E. Harmeson, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Bruce E. Harmeson, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2241 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 for claims addressed by a district court 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 both 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, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1040, 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.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941, 122 S.Ct. 318, 151 L.Ed.2d 237 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Harmeson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. The motion to amend the informal brief is granted. 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.