Court Opinion

ID: 1009707
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 20:00:14.777505+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:33:49.945310
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                      UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                          FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                               No. 02-7262

RONALD R. SMITHERMAN,

                                                Petitioner - Appellant,

             versus

RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia
Department of Corrections,

                                                 Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District
Judge. (CA-01-540-2)

Submitted:    January 30, 2003               Decided:   February 4, 2003

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald R. Smitherman, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Eldridge Jeffrey,
III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Ronald R. Smitherman, 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).   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 subject to dismissal 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, 122 S. Ct. 318 (2001).       We have reviewed

the record and conclude that Smitherman 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   adequately   presented   in   the

                                     2
materials   before   the   court   and   argument   would   not    aid   the

decisional process.

                                                                  DISMISSED

                                    3