Case Name: Earl Donte' CHANDLER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-04-10
Citations: 174 F. App'x 788
Docket Number: No. 05-7880
Parties: Earl Donte’ CHANDLER, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 174
Pages: 788–788

Head Matter:
Earl Donte’ CHANDLER, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 05-7880.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 30, 2006.
Decided: April 10, 2006.
Earl Donte’ Chandler, Appellant Pro Se.
Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Earl Donte' Chandler, a state prisoner, 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 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.) (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 reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that Chandler has not made the requisite showing. See Chandler v. Johnson, No. CA-05-568-2 (E.D.Va. Nov. 14, 2005). Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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