Case Name: Donald Demras PARKER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ernest SUTTON, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-06-25
Citations: 72 F. App'x 2
Docket Number: No. 03-6429
Parties: Donald Demras PARKER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ernest SUTTON, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 72
Pages: 2–3

Head Matter:
Donald Demras PARKER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ernest SUTTON, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 03-6429.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted June 19, 2003.
Decided June 25, 2003.
Donald Demras Parker, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Wallace-Smith, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Donald Demras Parker 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 to this court from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a state court 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 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 independently reviewed the record and conclude that Parker has not satisfied either standard. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). Accordingly, we deny Parker's motion for a certificate of appeal-ability 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.