Case Name: James Poston STOWE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Sidney HARKLEROAD, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-06-21
Citations: 100 F. App'x 947
Docket Number: No. 04-6699
Parties: James Poston STOWE, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Sidney HARKLEROAD, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 100
Pages: 947–948

Head Matter:
James Poston STOWE, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Sidney HARKLEROAD, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 04-6699.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted June 10, 2004.
Decided June 21, 2004.
James Poston Stowe, Appellant pro se.
Before WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
James Poston Stowe seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as untimely filed his petition 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 ju rists 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.2001) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000)). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Stowe has not made the requisite showing. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). Accordingly, we deny Stowe's motion for 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