Case Name: William T. ROBINSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Commonwealth of VIRGINIA, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-12-16
Citations: 53 F. App'x 235
Docket Number: No. 02-7489
Parties: William T. ROBINSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Commonwealth of VIRGINIA, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 53
Pages: 235–235

Head Matter:
William T. ROBINSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Commonwealth of VIRGINIA, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 02-7489.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 20, 2002.
Decided Dec. 16, 2002.
William T. Robinson, Appellant Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
William T. Robinson 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 Robinson has not made the requisite showing. See Robinson v. Virginia, No. CA-01-1273 (E.D.Va. Sept. 25, 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.