Case Name: Everett Garr WALKER, Petitioner- Appellant, v. Robert J. KUPEC, Warden; Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-12-22
Citations: 90 F. App'x 27
Docket Number: No. 03-7306
Parties: Everett Garr WALKER, Petitioner— Appellant, v. Robert J. KUPEC, Warden; Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 90
Pages: 27–27

Head Matter:
Everett Garr WALKER, Petitioner— Appellant, v. Robert J. KUPEC, Warden; Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 03-7306.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 11, 2003.
Decided Dec. 22, 2003.
Everett Garr Walker, Appellant pro se.
Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
Everett Garr Walker seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his habeas petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). This court may grant a certificate of appealability only if the appellant makes a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). Where, 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.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 Walker 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 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