Case Name: Duncan Victor Ayemere IDOKOGI, Petitioner-Appellant, v. John ASHCROFT; J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-05-18
Citations: 131 F. App'x 916
Docket Number: No. 05-6227
Parties: Duncan Victor Ayemere IDOKOGI, Petitioner—Appellant, v. John ASHCROFT; J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before TRAXLER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 131
Pages: 916–917

Head Matter:
Duncan Victor Ayemere IDOKOGI, Petitioner—Appellant, v. John ASHCROFT; J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Respondents—Appellees.
No. 05-6227.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted May 12, 2005.
Decided May 18, 2005.
Duncan Victor Ayemere Idokogi, Appellant pro se.
Before TRAXLER, KING, and SHEDD, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
Duncan Victor Ayemere Idokogi seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his motion for reconsideration of the district court's order denying relief on his habeas corpus 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); see Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 368-69, 374 n. 7 (4th Cir.2004). 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 both that the district court's assessment of the 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, 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 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Idokogi 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