Case Name: Darnell COLEMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. David A. GARRAGHTY, Chief Warden Greensville Correctional Center, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-06-25
Citations: 67 F. App'x 816
Docket Number: No. 02-7201
Parties: Darnell COLEMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. David A. GARRAGHTY, Chief Warden Greensville Correctional Center, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before LUTTIG, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 67
Pages: 816–817

Head Matter:
Darnell COLEMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. David A. GARRAGHTY, Chief Warden Greensville Correctional Center, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 02-7201.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted June 11, 2003.
Decided June 25, 2003.
Darnell Coleman, Appellant Pro Se.
Before LUTTIG, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Darnell Coleman seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as untimely filed his petition 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). After considering our recent decision in Wade v. Robinson, 327 F.3d 328 (4th Cir.2003), and independently reviewing the record, we conclude that Coleman has not made the requisite showing. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1039, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). Accordingly, we deny Coleman's motion for appointment of counsel, deny his motion for 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.