UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7684
LARRY BLACKWELL,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; HENRY DARGAN
MCMASTER, Attorney General; E. RICHARD
BAZZELL, Warden,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (CA-03-2633-0)
Submitted: August 13, 2004 Decided: August 30, 2004
Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Larry Blackwell, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief
Deputy Attorney General, Douglas Leadbitter, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Larry Steven Blackwell seeks to appeal the district
court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. By
order filed February 18, 2004, this appeal was placed in abeyance
for Jones v. Braxton, No. 03-6891. In view of our recent decision
in Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363 (4th Cir. 2004), we no longer
find it necessary to hold this case in abeyance for Jones.
Blackwell cannot appeal from the district court’s order
unless a circuit judge or justice issues a certificate of
appealability, and 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 habeas appellant meets
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, 326
(2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee,
252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed
the record and conclude Blackwell 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