Case Name: Larry McLEOD, a/k/a Pulley, Petitioner-Appellant, v. JJ. CLARK, Superintendent, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-05-29
Citations: 63 F. App'x 773
Docket Number: No. 03-6486
Parties: Larry McLEOD, a/k/a Pulley, Petitioner-Appellant, v. JJ. CLARK, Superintendent, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 63
Pages: 773–774

Head Matter:
Larry McLEOD, a/k/a Pulley, Petitioner-Appellant, v. JJ. CLARK, Superintendent, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 03-6486.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted May 15, 2003.
Decided May 29, 2003.
Larry McLeod, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, Office of the Attorney General of North Carolina, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
PER CURIAM:
Larry McLeod, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). 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 dismissed 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 independently reviewed the record and conclude that McLeod has not made the requisite showing. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 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.