Case Name: Anthony Jesus SANDERS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jack LEE, Warden, Keen Mountain Correctional Center, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-03-19
Citations: 90 F. App'x 47
Docket Number: No. 04-6031
Parties: Anthony Jesus SANDERS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Jack LEE, Warden, Keen Mountain Correctional Center, Respondent— Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 90
Pages: 47–48

Head Matter:
Anthony Jesus SANDERS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Jack LEE, Warden, Keen Mountain Correctional Center, Respondent— Appellee.
No. 04-6031.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted March 11, 2004.
Decided March 19, 2004.
Anthony Jesus Sanders, Appellant pro se.
Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Anthony Jesus Sanders has filed a motion for a certificate of appealability concerning the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition by the district court. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit judge or justice issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). This court will not issue a certificate of appealability as to claims dismissed by a district court on procedural grounds unless the movant 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.2001) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000)).
We have reviewed the record and determine that Sanders has not made the requisite showing. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. Sanders's "Motion of Retention of the Record" is denied as moot. 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 in the deci-sional process.
DISMISSED