Case Name: Ezekiel HICKS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. A. David ROBINSON, Warden, Nottoway Correctional Center, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-12-02
Citations: 114 F. App'x 114
Docket Number: No. 04-7204
Parties: Ezekiel HICKS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. A. David ROBINSON, Warden, Nottoway Correctional Center, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 114
Pages: 114–114

Head Matter:
Ezekiel HICKS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. A. David ROBINSON, Warden, Nottoway Correctional Center, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 04-7204.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 29, 2004.
Decided Dec. 2, 2004.
Ezekiel Hicks, Appellant pro se. Steven Andrew Witmer, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
Ezekiel Hicks, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is not appeal-able 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 Hicks 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