Green v. South Carolina , 86 F. App'x 576 ( 2004 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7532
DEXTER GREEN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; FIRST JUDICIAL
CIRCUIT OF SOUTH CAROLINA; COUNTY OF
ORANGEBURG; HENRY MCMASTER, Attorney General
for the State of South Carolina,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (CA-03-284-3-22BC)
Submitted: January 15, 2004 Decided: January 28, 2004
Before WIDENER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dexter Green, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy
Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Dexter Green appeals from the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 (2000) petition by the district court and the denial of
reconsideration of that order. An appeal may not be taken from the
final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit judge or
justice 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 (2003);
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d
676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).
We have reviewed the record and determine that Green has
not made the requisite showing. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537
U.S. 322, 336 (2003). Accordingly, we 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 in the decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 2 -