Case Name: Mark Anthony GLENN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Commonwealth of VIRGINIA; Ron Angelone; Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-02-13
Citations: 55 F. App'x 707
Docket Number: No. 02-7861
Parties: Mark Anthony GLENN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Commonwealth of VIRGINIA; Ron Angelone; Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 55
Pages: 707–707

Head Matter:
Mark Anthony GLENN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Commonwealth of VIRGINIA; Ron Angelone; Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 02-7861.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 6, 2003.
Decided Feb. 13, 2003.
Mark Anthony Glenn, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Mark Anthony Glenn appeals the district court's order denying relief on 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 28 U.S.C. § 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 Glenn has not made the requisite showing. See Glenn v. Virginia, No. CA-02-809-7 (W.D.Va. Oct. 31, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). 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.