Case Name: Elmer BARLEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Deborah E. HOGES, Clerk of Court, Campbell County, Virginia, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-01-07
Citations: 54 F. App'x 162
Docket Number: No. 02-7697
Parties: Elmer BARLEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Deborah E. HOGES, Clerk of Court, Campbell County, Virginia, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 54
Pages: 162–163

Head Matter:
Elmer BARLEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Deborah E. HOGES, Clerk of Court, Campbell County, Virginia, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 02-7697.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 19, 2002.
Decided Jan. 7, 2003.
Elmer Barley, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Drummond Bagwell, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Elmer Barley 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). 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) (2000). As to claims dismissed by a district court solely on proce dural 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 Barley has not satisfied either standard. See Barley v. Hoges, No. CA-02-723-7 (W.D.Va. Oct. 21, 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.