Case Name: George Tyrone EDMOND, Petitioner-Appellant, v. A. David ROBINSON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-12-29
Citations: 117 F. App'x 297
Docket Number: No. 04-6938
Parties: George Tyrone EDMOND, Petitioner—Appellant, v. A. David ROBINSON, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before TRAXLER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 117
Pages: 297–297

Head Matter:
George Tyrone EDMOND, Petitioner—Appellant, v. A. David ROBINSON, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 04-6938.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 30, 2004.
Decided Dec. 29, 2004.
George Tyrone Edmond, Appellant pro se. Donald Eldridge Jeffrey, III, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before TRAXLER, KING, and DUNCAN, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
George Tyrone Edmond, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is not appealable 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, 336-38, 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, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Edmond 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