Case Name: Donald Andre BARKLEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Superintendent J.C. WILSON, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-04-24
Citations: 177 F. App'x 308
Docket Number: No. 05-7520
Parties: Donald Andre BARKLEY, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Superintendent J.C. WILSON, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before MICHAEL, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 177
Pages: 308–309

Head Matter:
Donald Andre BARKLEY, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Superintendent J.C. WILSON, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 05-7520.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 20, 2006.
Decided: April 24, 2006.
Donald Andre Barkley, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MICHAEL, KING, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Donald Andre Barkley 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, 5S7 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 Barkley 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.