Case Name: Charles Eric HILL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. David MITCHELL, Superintendent; North Carolina Attorney General, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-05-03
Citations: 127 F. App'x 657
Docket Number: No. 04-7605
Parties: Charles Eric HILL, Petitioner—Appellant, v. David MITCHELL, Superintendent; North Carolina Attorney General, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 127
Pages: 657–658

Head Matter:
Charles Eric HILL, Petitioner—Appellant, v. David MITCHELL, Superintendent; North Carolina Attorney General, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 04-7605.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted April 28, 2005.
Decided May 3, 2005.
Charles Eric Hill, Appellant pro se. Sandra Wallace Smith, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WILLIAMS, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
Charles Eric Hill 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 the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims is 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 Hill 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