Court Opinion

ID: 1010412
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 20:11:19.915711+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:40:21.649469
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 02-7537

SHELDON GARY MCNEIL, JR.,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

PATRICK CONROY; J. JOSEPH CURRAN, JR.,

                                           Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.
(CA-02-497-AW)

Submitted:   April 7, 2003                     Decided:   May 2, 2003

Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sheldon Gary McNeil, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran,
Jr., Attorney General, Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

     Sheldon Gary McNeil, Jr. 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). 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 (2000)), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941

(2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that

McNeil has not satisfied either standard.             Accordingly, we deny a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.             We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

                                       2
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

                                                         DISMISSED

                                3