Case Name: Essence Ray JONES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN OF GREENSVILLE CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-08-20
Citations: 106 F. App'x 866
Docket Number: No. 04-6435
Parties: Essence Ray JONES, Petitioner—Appellant, v. WARDEN OF GREENSVILLE CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 106
Pages: 866–866

Head Matter:
Essence Ray JONES, Petitioner—Appellant, v. WARDEN OF GREENSVILLE CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 04-6435.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted July 28, 2004.
Decided Aug. 20, 2004.
Essence Ray Jones, Appellant pro se. Leah Ann Darron, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
Essence Ray Jones seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) for failure to exhaust state remedies. 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.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 Jones 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