Case Name: Michael Jerome VEST, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-08-24
Citations: 141 F. App'x 217
Docket Number: No. 05-6246
Parties: Michael Jerome VEST, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 141
Pages: 217–217

Head Matter:
Michael Jerome VEST, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 05-6246.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 18, 2005.
Decided Aug. 24, 2005.
Michael Jerome Vest, Appellant Pro Se. Leah Ann Darron, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Michael Jerome Vest seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) in which he claimed ineffective assistance of counsel and a due process violation. 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 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). Vest 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