Case ID: f-appx_55/html/0713-02.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

Brian HOWARD, Lieber Correctional Institution, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Charles Molony Condon, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 02-7472.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 28, 2003.
    Decided Feb. 14, 2003.
    
      Brian Howard, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel Creighton Waters, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
    Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

Brian Howard, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. An appeal may not be taken 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, 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.) (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 reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that Howard has not made the requisite showing. See Howard v. South Carolina, No. CA-02-656-6 (D.S.C. filed Sept. 10, 2002 and entered Sept. 11, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appeala-bility 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.