Case Name: Christopher WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. S.K. YOUNG, Warden, Wallen's Ridge State Prison, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-08-05
Citations: 70 F. App'x 722
Docket Number: No. 03-6229
Parties: Christopher WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. S.K. YOUNG, Warden, Wallen’s Ridge State Prison, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 70
Pages: 722–723

Head Matter:
Christopher WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. S.K. YOUNG, Warden, Wallen’s Ridge State Prison, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 03-6229.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted July 11, 2003.
Decided Aug. 5, 2003.
Christopher Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Andrew Witmer, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Christopher Williams seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding 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 for claims addressed by the district court on the merits 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 the district court's resolution of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 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 Williams 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.