
    Albert Lee STEVENSON, Jr., Petitioner—Appellant, v. Jennifer LANGLEY, Superintendent, Respondent—Appellee.
    No. 04-6013.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted June 30, 2004.
    Decided July 26, 2004.
    Albert Lee Stevenson, Jr., Appellant pro se. Sandra Wallace-Smith, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Albert Lee Stevenson, Jr., 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 his constitutional claims are 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, 337-38, 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 Stevenson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny the motion for trial transcripts, 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  