Case Name: Mark A. HARRIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. D.A. GARRAGHTY, Chief Warden, Greenville Correctional Center, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-05-05
Citations: 61 F. App'x 908
Docket Number: No. 03-6307
Parties: Mark A. HARRIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. D.A. GARRAGHTY, Chief Warden, Greenville Correctional Center, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 61
Pages: 908–909

Head Matter:
Mark A. HARRIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. D.A. GARRAGHTY, Chief Warden, Greenville Correctional Center, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 03-6307.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted April 24, 2003.
Decided May 5, 2003.
Mark A. Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Mozley Harris, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Mark A. Harris 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 certifícate 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 Harris 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 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.