Case Name: Keith Lemont SANDERS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-09-03
Citations: 108 F. App'x 787
Docket Number: No. 04-6637
Parties: Keith Lemont SANDERS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 108
Pages: 787–788

Head Matter:
Keith Lemont SANDERS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 04-6637.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 25, 2004.
Decided Sept. 3, 2004.
Keith Lemont Sanders, Appellant pro se. Steven Andrew Witmer, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
Keith Lemont Sanders 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 habeas corpus 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 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 Sanders has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Sanders' motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, deny his motion for 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