Court Opinion

ID: 1009775
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 20:01:14.206124+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:31:01.257493
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                      UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                          FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                               No. 02-7605

GREGORY L. SMITH,

                                              Petitioner - Appellant,

             versus

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

                                               Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-02-564)

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

Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gregory L. Smith, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Gregory L. Smith, 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 Smith has not made the requisite showing.             See

Smith v. Angelone, No. CA-02-564 (E.D. Va. filed Sept. 17, 2002 &

entered Sept. 18, 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

                                       2
materials   before   the   court   and   argument   would   not    aid   the

decisional process.

                                                                  DISMISSED

                                    3