Court Opinion

ID: 1010231
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 20:08:12.507331+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:37:15.489980
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 03-6190

DOROTHEA CHISOM MARTIN,

                                             Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

FLUVANNA CORRECTIONAL CENTER FOR WOMEN,

                                             Respondent -   Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District
Judge. (CA-02-607-7)

Submitted:   March 20, 2003                 Decided:   March 31, 2003

Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dorothea Chisom Martin, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

       Dorothea C. Martin seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on her 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 unless a circuit justice or judge issues

a certificate of appealability.           28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000).

When   a   district   court   dismisses    a    habeas     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 independently

reviewed the record and conclude that Martin has not made the

requisite showing.      See Miller-El v. Cockrell,              U.S.    , 123 S.

Ct.    1029   (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

                                     2