Case Name: Thomas William BROWN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. H.R. POWELL, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-01-18
Citations: 161 F. App'x 329
Docket Number: No. 05-7233
Parties: Thomas William BROWN, Petitioner—Appellant, v. H.R. POWELL, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 161
Pages: 329–330

Head Matter:
Thomas William BROWN, Petitioner—Appellant, v. H.R. POWELL, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 05-7233.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 21, 2005.
Decided Jan. 18, 2006.
Thomas William Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen R. McCullough, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Thomas William Brown, 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, 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 Brown has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We further deny Brown's request for appointment of counsel. 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