
    Dwayne Lamont GILMORE, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Commonwealth of VIRGINIA, Respondent—Appellee.
    No. 03-6987.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 15, 2003.
    Decided Dec. 3, 2003.
    Dwayne Lamont Gilmore, Appellant pro se. Kathleen B. Martin, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before GREGORY and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM.

Dwayne Lamont Gilmore seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) as procedurally defaulted. 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 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, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1039, 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 Gilmore has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Gilmore’s motion to obtain an affidavit, 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  