
    Larry BLACKWELL, Petitioner—Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Henry Dargan McMaster, Attorney General; E. Richard Bazzell, Warden, Respondents—Appellees.
    No. 03-7684.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 13, 2004.
    Decided Aug. 30, 2004.
    Larry Blackwell, Appellant pro se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Douglas Leadbitter, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
    Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM.

Larry Steven Blackwell seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. By order filed February 18, 2004, this appeal was placed in abeyance for Jones v. Braxton, No. 03-6891. In view of our recent decision in Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363 (4th Cir.2004), we no longer find it necessary to hold this case in abeyance for Jones.

Blackwell cannot appeal from the district court’s order unless a circuit judge or justice issues a certificate of appealability, and 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 habeas appellant meets 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, 326, 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 Blackwell has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 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  