Case Name: Michael BURNS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gary MAYNARD, Director South Carolina Department of Corrections; Charles 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: 2003-08-18
Citations: 71 F. App'x 256
Docket Number: No. 03-6548
Parties: Michael BURNS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gary MAYNARD, Director South Carolina Department of Corrections; Charles Condon, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 71
Pages: 256–257

Head Matter:
Michael BURNS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gary MAYNARD, Director South Carolina Department of Corrections; Charles Condon, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 03-6548.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted July 18, 2003.
Decided Aug. 18, 2003.
Michael Bums, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, III, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Michael Burns, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his motion 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 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 Burns 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.