UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7089
STEVEN WHEELER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
R. ANGELONE, Director,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District
Judge. (CA-02-1562-AM)
Submitted: October 27, 2003 Decided: November 17, 2003
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Steven Wheeler, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Kathleen Beatty Martin,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Steven T. Wheeler seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying relief on his petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254
(2000). 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 constitutional right.” 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A petitioner 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, , 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 Wheeler has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also
deny Wheeler’s motion for the appointment of counsel. 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