Case Name: Sabastian HASKINS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Page TRUE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-02-12
Citations: 55 F. App'x 687
Docket Number: No. 02-7401
Parties: Sabastian HASKINS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Page TRUE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 55
Pages: 687–687

Head Matter:
Sabastian HASKINS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Page TRUE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 02-7401.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 6, 2003.
Decided Feb. 12, 2003.
Sabastian Haskins, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Sabastian Haskins 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 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 Haskins has not made the requisite showing. See Haskins v. True, No. CA-01-1667-AM (E.D. Va. filed May 29, 2002, entered May 30, 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.