Case Name: Howard T. PETERSON, III, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Willie EAGLETON, Warden, Evans Correctional Institution; Henry McMaster, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-03-18
Citations: 123 F. App'x 140
Docket Number: No. 04-7678
Parties: Howard T. PETERSON, III, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Willie EAGLETON, Warden, Evans Correctional Institution; Henry McMaster, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 123
Pages: 140–140

Head Matter:
Howard T. PETERSON, III, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Willie EAGLETON, Warden, Evans Correctional Institution; Henry McMaster, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 04-7678.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 11, 2005.
Decided March 18, 2005.
Howard T. Peterson, III, Appellant pro se. Melody Jane Brown, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
Howard T. Peterson, III, seeks to appeal from the denial of relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. An appeal may not be taken to this court 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 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 jurists of reason 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 reviewed the record and conclude that Peterson has not made the requisite showing. We therefore 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