Court Opinion

ID: 8600072
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-23 21:22:19.751203+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:55:09.825069
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM:
Daniel Profit Davis appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis. 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 *664constitutional 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, 336-38, 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 Davis has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Davis’ motion to proceed in forma pauper-is. 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