Case Name: Nathaniel Brandt ROBINSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Page TRUE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-02-17
Citations: 122 F. App'x 43
Docket Number: No. 04-7762
Parties: Nathaniel Brandt ROBINSON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Page TRUE, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 122
Pages: 43–44

Head Matter:
Nathaniel Brandt ROBINSON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Page TRUE, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 04-7762.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 9, 2005.
Decided: Feb. 17, 2005.
Nathaniel Brandt Robinson, Appellant pro se.
Amy L. Marshall, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Nathaniel Brandt Robinson, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing 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 constitu tional 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 Robinson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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