Case Name: Anthony Daron SCHENCK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Rick JACKSON; Michael F. Easley, Attorney General of North Carolina, 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 175
Docket Number: No. 02-7318
Parties: Anthony Daron SCHENCK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Rick JACKSON; Michael F. Easley, Attorney General of North Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 56
Pages: 175–176

Head Matter:
Anthony Daron SCHENCK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Rick JACKSON; Michael F. Easley, Attorney General of North Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 02-7318.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 20, 2003.
Decided Feb. 26, 2003.
Anthony Daron Schenck, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, Office of the Attorney General of North Carolina, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Anthony D. Schenck, 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 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 Schenck has not made the requisite showing. See Schenck v. Jackson, No. CA-00-119-1-MU (W.D.N.C. filed June 10, 2002; entered June 11, 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.