
    Eddie L. BARKSDALE, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Ms. BASSET, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
    No. 04-7110.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 10, 2004.
    Decided Dec. 23, 2004.
    
      Eddie L. Barksdale, Appellant pro se.
    Thomas Drummond Bagwell, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM.

Eddie Louis Barksdale seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting the Commonwealth’s motion to dismiss Barks-dale’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition and denying his claims as procedurally defaulted. 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 certifícate 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 Barksdale has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Barks-dale’s motion for appointment of counsel, 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  