
    William Lee BRADSHAW, Petitioner—Appellant, v. DIRECTOR, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent—Appellee.
    No. 03-7127.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 12, 2004.
    Decided Feb. 20, 2004.
    William Lee Bradshaw, Appellant pro se. Robert H. Anderson, III, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

William Lee Bradshaw, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 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 prisoner 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, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Bradshaw has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Bradshaw’s motions under Fed. R.App. P. 44(b) and for appointment of counsel, 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  