Case Name: Edward E. MCCORKLE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James V. PEGUESE, Warden; J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-12-07
Citations: 157 F. App'x 628
Docket Number: No. 05-7537
Parties: Edward E. MCCORKLE, Petitioner—Appellant, v. James V. PEGUESE, Warden; J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 157
Pages: 628–629

Head Matter:
Edward E. MCCORKLE, Petitioner—Appellant, v. James V. PEGUESE, Warden; J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 05-7537.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 22, 2005.
Decided Dec. 7, 2005.
Michael Patrick Lytle, Warnken, L.L.C., Towson, Maryland, for Appellant. Edward John Kelley, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Edward E. MeCorkle seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. 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 both that the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong 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 MeCorkle 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