Case Name: Howard Eugene SAFRIT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Joseph P. PICKELSIMER, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-03-30
Citations: 173 F. App'x 262
Docket Number: No. 05-6687
Parties: Howard Eugene SAFRIT, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Joseph P. PICKELSIMER, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 173
Pages: 262–263

Head Matter:
Howard Eugene SAFRIT, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Joseph P. PICKELSIMER, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 05-6687.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 28, 2006.
Decided: March 30, 2006.
Howard Eugene Safrit, Appellant Pro Se. Michael F. Easley, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Howard Eugene Safrit seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing 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 substan tial 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 the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336, 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 that Safrit has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny Safrit'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