Case Name: Robert Jerry SMITH, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. William D. CATOE, Director of South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-12-02
Citations: 51 F. App'x 436
Docket Number: No. 02-6989
Parties: Robert Jerry SMITH, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. William D. CATOE, Director of South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 51
Pages: 436–437

Head Matter:
Robert Jerry SMITH, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. William D. CATOE, Director of South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 02-6989.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 21, 2002.
Decided Dec. 2, 2002.
Robert Jerry Smith, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Charles Molony Condon, Attorney General, William Edgar Salter, III, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Robert Jerry Smith, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 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). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court on the merits absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional" right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). As to claims dismissed by a district court 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 reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that Smith has not satisfied either standard. See Smith v. Catoe, No. CA-00-2983-9-10 (D.S.C. May 29, 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.