Case Name: Darrell L. FLEMING, Sr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ronald J. ANGELONE, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-05-02
Citations: 61 F. App'x 899
Docket Number: No. 03-6291
Parties: Darrell L. FLEMING, Sr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ronald J. ANGELONE, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 61
Pages: 899–900

Head Matter:
Darrell L. FLEMING, Sr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ronald J. ANGELONE, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 03-6291.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted April 24, 2003.
Decided May 2, 2003.
Darrell L. Fleming, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Drummond Bagwell, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Darrell L. Fleming, Sr., seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) on the ground that it was not timely filed. An appeal may not be taken to this court 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). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims dismissed by a district court solely on procedural grounds 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 find that Fleming has not satisfied this standard. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1034, 1039, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). 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.