Case Name: Brian D. HILL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee; Brian D. Hill, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. Johnson, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-03-31
Citations: 60 F. App'x 458
Docket Number: Nos. 03-6084, 03-6090
Parties: Brian D. HILL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee. Brian D. Hill, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. Johnson, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 60
Pages: 458–459

Head Matter:
Brian D. HILL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee. Brian D. Hill, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. Johnson, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.
Nos. 03-6084, 03-6090.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted March 20, 2002.
Decided March 31, 2003.
Brian D. Hill, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILLIAMS and TRAKLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Brian Hill, a Virginia inmate, seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his petitions filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). However, 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, 122 S.Ct. 318 (2001).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hill has not made the requisite showing. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, _ U.S. _, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1039-40, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). Accordingly, although we grant Hill's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny a certificate of appealability for each appeal and dismiss Hill's appeals. Additionally, we deny Hill's motion for preparation of a transcript at government expense and 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.