Case Name: Charles Eugene CARPENTER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gary MAYNARD, Director, Scdc; Charles M. Condon, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-07-01
Citations: 101 F. App'x 923
Docket Number: No. 04-6281
Parties: Charles Eugene CARPENTER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gary MAYNARD, Director, Scdc; Charles M. Condon, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 101
Pages: 923–924

Head Matter:
Charles Eugene CARPENTER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gary MAYNARD, Director, Scdc; Charles M. Condon, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 04-6281.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted June 24, 2004.
Decided July 1, 2004.
Charles Eugene Carpenter, Appellant pro se. Samuel Creighton Waters, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
Charles Eugene Carpenter seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) and motion for a certificate of appealability. The orders are 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. § 2258(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 Carpenter 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