Case Name: George W. BLACKWELL, Sr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. David MITCHELL, Superintendent; Roy Cooper, North Carolina Attorney General, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-08-09
Citations: 194 F. App'x 134
Docket Number: No. 05-7909
Parties: George W. BLACKWELL, Sr., Petitioner—Appellant, v. David MITCHELL, Superintendent; Roy Cooper, North Carolina Attorney General, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 194
Pages: 134–134

Head Matter:
George W. BLACKWELL, Sr., Petitioner—Appellant, v. David MITCHELL, Superintendent; Roy Cooper, North Carolina Attorney General, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 05-7909.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 21, 2006.
Decided: Aug. 9, 2006.
George W. Blackwell, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
George W. Blackwell, Sr., a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appeal-able 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 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 Blackwell has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Blackwell's motion for 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.