Case Name: Keith Antonio EDMONDS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. G.K. WASHINGTON, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-10-07
Citations: 77 F. App'x 653
Docket Number: No. 03-6887
Parties: Keith Antonio EDMONDS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. G.K. WASHINGTON, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 77
Pages: 653–653

Head Matter:
Keith Antonio EDMONDS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. G.K. WASHINGTON, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 03-6887.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 30, 2003.
Decided Oct. 7, 2003.
Keith Antonio Edmonds, Appellant Pro Se. Leah Ann Darron, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Keith Antonio Edmonds 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 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, 1039-40, 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 Edmonds 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.