UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6297
JEFFREY ALLEN THOMAS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
S. K. YOUNG,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge.
(CA-04-390-7-GEC)
Submitted: June 30, 2005 Decided: July 27, 2005
Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jeffrey Allen Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Christopher
Galanides, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Jeffrey Allen Thomas, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal
the district court’s order denying relief on his petition 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 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 Thomas
has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny the
motions for appointment of counsel and to proceed at government
expense, 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 -