Case Name: Bert Moore JORDAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-04-20
Citations: 126 F. App'x 138
Docket Number: No. 04-7873
Parties: Bert Moore JORDAN, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 126
Pages: 138–139

Head Matter:
Bert Moore JORDAN, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 04-7873.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 25, 2005.
Decided: April 20, 2005.
William Todd Watson, David Bernard Hargett, Hargett & Watson, PLC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant.
Robert H. Anderson, III, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Bert Moore Jordan, a state prisoner, 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 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 the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 338, 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 Jordan 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