Case Name: Freddie L. CANNON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Derrick WADSWORTH, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-04-23
Citations: 60 F. App'x 974
Docket Number: No. 03-6183
Parties: Freddie L. CANNON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Derrick WADSWORTH, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 60
Pages: 974–975

Head Matter:
Freddie L. CANNON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Derrick WADSWORTH, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 03-6183.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted April 17, 2003.
Decided April 23, 2003.
Freddie L. Cannon, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, Office Of The Attorney General Of North Carolina, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Freddie L. Cannon seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed 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 peti tioner 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 conclude that Cannon has not made the requisite showing. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 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.