Case Name: Edmond Stanley ADAMS, III, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Stan BURTT, Warden; Henry McMaster, Attorney General for South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-06-16
Citations: 133 F. App'x 919
Docket Number: No. 05-6421
Parties: Edmond Stanley ADAMS, III, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Stan BURTT, Warden; Henry McMaster, Attorney General for South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 133
Pages: 919–919

Head Matter:
Edmond Stanley ADAMS, III, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Stan BURTT, Warden; Henry McMaster, Attorney General for South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 05-6421.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 9, 2005.
Decided: June 16, 2005.
Edmond Stanley Adams, III, Appellant pro se.
Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Edmond Stanley Adams seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) because he failed to first exhaust his state court remedies. 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 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, 336-38, 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 Adams 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