
    Darryl TAYLOR, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James SMITH, Warden; Douglas Gansler, The Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 08-7125.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: June 4, 2009.
    Decided: June 26, 2009.
    
      Michael Lawlor, Lawlor & Englert, LLC, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Edward John Kelley, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Darryl Taylor, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. Although we initially dismissed this appeal on the ground that Taylor failed to file a timely notice of appeal, we granted Taylor’s rehearing petition and have considered the merits of the appeal. We now dismiss the appeal because Taylor has failed to meet the standard for the issuance of a certificate of appealability.

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 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 Taylor has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of ap-pealability 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.  