Case Name: Dexter GREEN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; First Judicial Circuit of South Carolina; County of Orangeburg; Henry McMaster, Attorney General for the State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-01-28
Citations: 86 F. App'x 576
Docket Number: No. 03-7532
Parties: Dexter GREEN, Petitioner—Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; First Judicial Circuit of South Carolina; County of Orangeburg; Henry McMaster, Attorney General for the State of South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 86
Pages: 576–577

Head Matter:
Dexter GREEN, Petitioner—Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; First Judicial Circuit of South Carolina; County of Orangeburg; Henry McMaster, Attorney General for the State of South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 03-7532.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 15, 2004.
Decided Jan. 28, 2004.
Dexter Green, Appellant pro se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WIDENER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Dexter Green appeals from the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition by the district court and the denial of reconsideration of that order. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit judge or justice issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(l)(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 reviewed the record and determine that Green has not made the requisite showing. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). 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 in the decisional process.
DISMISSED