Case Name: Steven WHEELER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. R. ANGELONE, Director, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-11-17
Citations: 80 F. App'x 875
Docket Number: No. 03-7089
Parties: Steven WHEELER, Petitioner—Appellant, v. R. ANGELONE, Director, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 80
Pages: 875–876

Head Matter:
Steven WHEELER, Petitioner—Appellant, v. R. ANGELONE, Director, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 03-7089.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 27, 2003.
Decided Nov. 17, 2003.
Steven Wheeler, pro se.
Mary Kathleen Beatty Martin, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
Steven T. Wheeler seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed pursuant to 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 petitioner 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 Wheeler has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Wheeler's motion for the appointment of counsel. 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