Case Name: Pakastan Algier GARY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. George HINKLE, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-07-14
Citations: 102 F. App'x 356
Docket Number: No. 04-6319
Parties: Pakastan Algier GARY, Petitioner—Appellant, v. George HINKLE, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before WIDENER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 102
Pages: 356–356

Head Matter:
Pakastan Algier GARY, Petitioner—Appellant, v. George HINKLE, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 04-6319.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 2, 2004.
Decided: July 14, 2004.
Pakastan Algier Gary, Appellant pro se.
Before WIDENER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Pakastan Algier Gary, a Virginia prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) as successive. 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 a district court 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 both 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 Gary has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. To the extent Gary's notice of appeal and informal brief could be construed as a motion for authorization to file a successive § 2254 petition, we deny such authorization. See United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 124 S.Ct. 496, 157 L.Ed.2d 395 (2003). 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
By order filed May 13, 2004, this appeal was placed in abeyance for Jones v. Braxton, No. 03-6891. In view of our recent decision in Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363 (4th Cir.2004), we no longer find it necessary to hold this case in abeyance for Jones.