Court Opinion

ID: 1009777
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 20:01:15.544744+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:34:44.671465
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 02-7388

MONTRELL ANTONIO ROBINSON,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

RONALD J. ANGELONE,

                                            Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.  Claude M. Hilton, Chief
District Judge. (CA-01-1859-AM)

Submitted:   February 6, 2003          Decided:     February 12, 2003

Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Montrell Antonio Robinson, Appellant Pro Se.   Linwood Theodore
Wells, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

      Montrell Antonio Robinson, 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 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 (2000)), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941

(2001).      We have reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons

stated by the district court that Robinson has not made the

requisite showing.         See Robinson v. Angelone, No. CA-01-1859-AM

(E.D. Va. filed Aug. 12, 2002; entered Aug. 13, 2002). 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

                                      2