Case Name: Willard F. MEARS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jack LEE, Warden; Virginia Department of Corrections, Classification Service, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-07-01
Citations: 101 F. App'x 919
Docket Number: No. 04-6280
Parties: Willard F. MEARS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jack LEE, Warden; Virginia Department of Corrections, Classification Service, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 101
Pages: 919–920

Head Matter:
Willard F. MEARS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jack LEE, Warden; Virginia Department of Corrections, Classification Service, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 04-6280.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted June 24, 2004.
Decided July 1, 2004.
Willard F. Mears, Appellant pro se. William W. Muse, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
William F. Mears seeks to appeal the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. 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 on the merits absent a "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). A habeas appellant meets 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, 326, 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). Upon review of the materials before the court, we conclude that Mears has not made the required 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