Case Name: Joseph Otis GOVAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE of South Carolina; Charles Molony Condon, Attorney General, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-08-20
Citations: 71 F. App'x 276
Docket Number: No. 03-6825
Parties: Joseph Otis GOVAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE of South Carolina; Charles Molony Condon, Attorney General, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 71
Pages: 276–276

Head Matter:
Joseph Otis GOVAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE of South Carolina; Charles Molony Condon, Attorney General, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 03-6825.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 6, 2003.
Decided Aug. 20, 2003.
Joseph Otis Govan, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Joseph Otis Govan 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 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, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1040, 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.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941, 122 S.Ct. 318, 151 L.Ed.2d 237 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Govan 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.