Case Name: Hassan Malick ALI, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-05-04
Citations: 128 F. App'x 319
Docket Number: No. 04-7808
Parties: Hassan Malick ALI, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 128
Pages: 319–320

Head Matter:
Hassan Malick ALI, Petitioner-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 04-7808.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted April 28, 2005.
Decided May 4, 2005.
Hassan Malik Ali, Appellant pro se. Robert H. Anderson, III, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
Hassan Malik Ali 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 ap-pealability 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 Ali has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appeala-bility 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