UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6548
MICHAEL BURNS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
GARY MAYNARD, Director South Carolina
Department of Corrections; CHARLES CONDON,
Attorney General of the State of South
Carolina,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(CA-02-1263)
Submitted: July 18, 2003 Decided: August 18, 2003
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Burns, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, III, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Michael Burns, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken 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 for claims addressed by
a district court 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 both 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,
123 S. Ct. 1029, 1040 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484
(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,
534 U.S. 941 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and
conclude that Burns has not made the requisite showing.
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 the decisional process.
DISMISSED
2