Kelvin J. Miles v. Braxton, No. 03-6891. In view of our recent decision in Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7734
KELVIN J. MILES,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
WARDEN, Maryland Correctional Institute,
Hagerstown, Maryland,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.
(CA-03-1961-AW)
Submitted: July 19, 2004 Decided: August 12, 2004
Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kelvin J. Miles, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 3 --

*By order filed April 6, 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.
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Kelvin J. Miles, 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, 338
(2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee,
252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed
the record and conclude that Miles has not made the requisite
showing. Accordingly, we deny the motions for a certificate of
appealability, bail, and appointment of counsel, and dismiss the
appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --