UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6004
KELVIN J. MILES,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
WARDEN, MARYLAND CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION -
HAGERSTOWN,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.
(CA-04-3660-AW)
Submitted: March 25, 2005 Decided: April 18, 2005
Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kelvin J. Miles, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Kelvin J. Miles, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the
district court’s orders denying relief on his petition filed under
28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) and denying his motion for reconsideration.
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 the district court’s assessment of his
constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any
dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also
debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 338
(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 that Miles has not made the requisite
showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and
dismiss the appeal. The motion for bail and appointment of counsel
is denied. 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. The
motion to expedite consideration of this appeal is denied as moot.
DISMISSED