Case Name: Michael G. KESELICA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. J. Michael STOUFFER, Warden; Attorney General for the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-06-20
Citations: 67 F. App'x 219
Docket Number: No. 03-6160
Parties: Michael G. KESELICA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. J. Michael STOUFFER, Warden; Attorney General for the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 67
Pages: 219–220

Head Matter:
Michael G. KESELICA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. J. Michael STOUFFER, Warden; Attorney General for the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 03-6160.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted June 12, 2003.
Decided June 20, 2003.
Michael G. Keselica, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Michael G. Keselica, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) without prejudice. When, as here, a district court dismisses a § 2241 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 independently reviewed the record and conclude that Keselica has not made the requisite showing. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 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.