Case ID: f-appx_57/html/0586-02.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

John R. WILCOX, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. MARYLAND CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, HAGERSTOWN, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 03-6139.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted March 6, 2003.
    Decided March 17, 2003.
    John R. Wilcox, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Karl Aram Pothier, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appel-lee.
    
      Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

John R. Wilcox, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000), and denying reconsideration. An appeal may not be taken to this court from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). When a district court dismisses a habeas 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.) (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 that Wilcox has not made the requisite showing. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, — U.S.-, 123 S.Ct. 1029,154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). 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.