Case Name: Monty Jackson SMITH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gary D. MAYNARD, Director of South Carolina Department of Corrections; Charles Molony 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: 2003-10-22
Citations: 78 F. App'x 307
Docket Number: No. 03-6470
Parties: Monty Jackson SMITH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gary D. MAYNARD, Director of South Carolina Department of Corrections; Charles Molony Condon, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 78
Pages: 307–308

Head Matter:
Monty Jackson SMITH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gary D. MAYNARD, Director of South Carolina Department of Corrections; Charles Molony Condon, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 03-6470.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted July 18, 2003.
Decided Oct. 22, 2003.
Monty Jackson Smith, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, III, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Monty Jackson Smith, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding 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 for claims addressed by a district court 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 both that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable of 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 Smith 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.