Court Opinion

ID: 1010101
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 20:06:30.816892+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:35:41.220541
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 03-6051

RONNEY EARL TURNER,

                                             Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

                                              Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, District
Judge. (CA-01-1806-AM)

Submitted:   March 20, 2003                 Decided:   March 28, 2003

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

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronney Earl Turner, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Paul Murphy, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

     Ronney Earl Turner 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. 2001) (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 Turner has not satisfied either standard.                See Miller-El v.

Cockrell,      U.S.     , 2003 WL 431659, at *10 (U.S. Feb. 25, 2003)

(No. 01-7662). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability

and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the

                                        2
facts   and   legal    contentions   are   adequately   presented     in   the

materials     before   the   court   and   argument   would   not    aid   the

decisional process.

                                                                    DISMISSED

                                      3