Case Name: Mark Anthony CUNNINGHAM, Petitioner-Appellant, v. J. Michael STOUFFER, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-12-31
Citations: 54 F. App'x 157
Docket Number: No. 02-7437
Parties: Mark Anthony CUNNINGHAM, Petitioner-Appellant, v. J. Michael STOUFFER, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 54
Pages: 157–158

Head Matter:
Mark Anthony CUNNINGHAM, Petitioner-Appellant, v. J. Michael STOUFFER, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 02-7437.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 19, 2002.
Decided Dec. 31, 2002.
Mark Anthony Cunningham, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Mary Ann Rapp Ince, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Mark Anthony Cunningham, 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 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). 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 Cunningham has not made the requisite showing. See Cunningham v. Stouffer, No. CA-02-2219-S (D.Md. Sept. 12, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Cunningham's motion for appointment of counsel and 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.