Case Name: Tyrone WEST, Petitioner-Appellant, v. J. Michael STOUFFER; J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-09-27
Citations: 150 F. App'x 203
Docket Number: No. 05-6458
Parties: Tyrone WEST, Petitioner—Appellant, v. J. Michael STOUFFER; J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 150
Pages: 203–204

Head Matter:
Tyrone WEST, Petitioner—Appellant, v. J. Michael STOUFFER; J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 05-6458.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 31, 2005.
Decided: Sept. 27, 2005.
Tyrone West, Appellant pro se. Ann Norman Bosse, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Tyrone West seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. 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 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, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently re viewed the record and conclude that West has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny West's motion for appointment of counsel, deny a certifícate 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