Case Name: Marvin Ricardo DARDEN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, POWHATAN CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-10-30
Citations: 79 F. App'x 597
Docket Number: No. 03-6847
Parties: Marvin Ricardo DARDEN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, POWHATAN CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 79
Pages: 597–598

Head Matter:
Marvin Ricardo DARDEN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, POWHATAN CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 03-6847.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 23, 2003.
Decided Oct. 30, 2003.
Marvin Ricardo Darden, Appellant Pro Se. John H. McLees, Jr., Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Marvin Ricardo Darden seeks to appeal from the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is not appeal-able 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 de batable 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, 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 Darden 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.