Case ID: f-appx_50/html/0112-02.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

Jose MORALES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. D.K. HORNING, Warden; Attorney General for the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 02-6974.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 24, 2002.
    Decided Nov. 6, 2002.
    Jose Morales, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Ann Norman Bosse, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
    Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

Jose Morales seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). 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). When, as here, a district court dismisses a § 2254 petition 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.2001) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000)). We have reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that Morales has not made the requisite showing. See Morales v. Homing, No. CA-01-3711CCB (D.Md. May 17, 2002). Accordingly, we deny Morales’ motion for appointment of counsel, 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.