Case Name: Hilda L. FLOYD, Mother of Minor Child E.C., Petitioner-Appellant, v. The State of MARYLAND; Attorney General, Criminal Appeals Division, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-08-05
Citations: 103 F. App'x 793
Docket Number: No. 04-6623
Parties: Hilda L. FLOYD, Mother of Minor Child E.C., Petitioner-Appellant, v. The State of MARYLAND; Attorney General, Criminal Appeals Division, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 103
Pages: 793–793

Head Matter:
Hilda L. FLOYD, Mother of Minor Child E.C., Petitioner-Appellant, v. The State of MARYLAND; Attorney General, Criminal Appeals Division, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 04-6623.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 29, 2004.
Decided: Aug. 5, 2004.
Hilda L. Floyd, Appellant pro se.
Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Hilda L. Floyd seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on the habeas corpus petition she filed on behalf of her son, who is a Maryland inmate. 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 litigant 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 Floyd has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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