Case Name: Donnae C. REEDY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jon P. GALLEY, Warden; J. Joseph Curran, Jr., the Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-05-21
Citations: 96 F. App'x 926
Docket Number: No. 04-6137
Parties: Donnae C. REEDY, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Jon P. GALLEY, Warden; J. Joseph Curran, Jr., the Attorney General of the State of Maryland, RespondentsAppellees.
Judges: Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 96
Pages: 926–927

Head Matter:
Donnae C. REEDY, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Jon P. GALLEY, Warden; J. Joseph Curran, Jr., the Attorney General of the State of Maryland, RespondentsAppellees.
No. 04-6137.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted April 29, 2004.
Decided May 21, 2004.
Donnae C. Reedy, Appellant pro se. Mary Ann Rapp Ince, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Donnae C. Reedy seeks to appeal the district court's order and order on reconsideration dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. Reedy cannot appeal these orders unless a circuit judge or justice issues a certificate of appealability, and 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 habeas appellant meets 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, 326, 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 Reedy has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Reedy's motion for appointment of counsel, 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