Case Name: Michael ALLEN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, NOTTOWAY CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-05-18
Citations: 131 F. App'x 919
Docket Number: No. 05-6312
Parties: Michael ALLEN, Petitioner—Appellant, v. WARDEN, NOTTOWAY CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before TRAXLER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 131
Pages: 919–920

Head Matter:
Michael ALLEN, Petitioner—Appellant, v. WARDEN, NOTTOWAY CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 05-6312.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 12, 2005.
Decided: May 18, 2005.
Michael Allen, Appellant pro se.
Stephen R. McCullough, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before TRAXLER, KING, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Michael Allen, a Virginia inmate, seeks to appeal the district court's orders dismissing as successive his habeas corpus petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The orders are 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 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Allen 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