Case ID: f-appx_56/html/0623-01.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

William H. DESHIELDS, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. William O. FILBERT; Attorney General for the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 02-7577.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 25, 2003.
    Decided March 10, 2003.
    William H. DeShields, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Mary Ann Rapp Ince, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
    Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

William H. DeShields, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition for habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken to this court from the final order arising out of a habeas corpus 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 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, 534 U.S. 941, 122 S.Ct. 318, 151 L.Ed.2d 237 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that DeShields has not satisfied either standard. See DeShields v. Filbert, No. CA-01-4251-JFM (D.Md. Sept. 23, 2002). 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.