Case Name: Demetric Gray PEARSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James PEGUESE; Attorney General for the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-05-06
Citations: 96 F. App'x 161
Docket Number: No. 04-6524
Parties: Demetric Gray PEARSON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. James PEGUESE; Attorney General for the State of Maryland, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 96
Pages: 161–162

Head Matter:
Demetric Gray PEARSON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. James PEGUESE; Attorney General for the State of Maryland, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 04-6524.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted April 29, 2004.
Decided May 6, 2004.
Demetric Gray Pearson, Petitioner pro se. Mary Ann Rapp Ince, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Demetric Gray Pearson seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. 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)(2). 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 independently reviewed the record and conclude that Pearson has not satisfied either standard. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). Accordingly, we deny Pearson's motions for transcript at government expense, for appointment of counsel, for 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