Case ID: f-appx_51/html/0470-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Stephen E. McCLELLAND, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ronald J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee. Stephen E. McClelland, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ronald J. Angelone, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee. Stephen E. McClelland, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ronald J. Angelone, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.
    Nos. 02-6984, 02-7097, 02-7396.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 6, 2002.
    Decided Dec. 4, 2002.
    Stephen E. McClelland, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Drummond Bagwell, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before WILLIAM D. WILKINS, DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

In these consolidated appeals, Stephen E. McClelland seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000), and denying his motions for arbitration and for appointment of counsel. An appeal may not be taken to this court from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a state court unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of ap-pealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court on the merits absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). As to claims dismissed by a district court solely on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue unless the petitioner can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’ ” Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000)), cert, denied, — U.S. -, 122 S.Ct. 318, 151 L.Ed.2d 237 (2001). We have reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that McClelland has not satisfied either standard. See McClelland v. Angelone, No. CA-01-105-2 (E.D. Va. filed June 7, 2002, & entered June 10, 2002; filed June 17, 2002, & entered June 18, 2002; Aug. 13, 2002).

Accordingly, we deny certificates of ap-pealability in each appeal and dismiss the appeals. We deny McClelland’s motions for appointment of counsel, to reconsider our order deferring action on the motion for appointment of counsel, to transfer the record from state court, and for an eviden-tiary hearing. 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.