Case Name: Raymond Dale BOYD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; Greensville Correctional Center, Warden, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-02-26
Citations: 56 F. App'x 178
Docket Number: No. 02-7744
Parties: Raymond Dale BOYD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; Greensville Correctional Center, Warden, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 56
Pages: 178–178

Head Matter:
Raymond Dale BOYD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; Greensville Correctional Center, Warden, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 02-7744.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 20, 2003.
Decided Feb. 26, 2003.
Raymond Dale Boyd, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Thomas Judge, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Raymond Dale Boyd, a Virginia inmate, seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition as untimely. 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 Boyd has not made the requisite showing. See Boyd v. Attorney General, No. CA-02-404 (E.D.Va. Oct. 4, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of ap-pealability 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.