Court Opinion

ID: 1010441
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 20:11:38.34073+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:40:23.221783
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 02-7750

BERTRAM NORMAN MCELHINEY,

                                            Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

SID HARKLEROAD,

                                             Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief
District Judge. (CA-02-325-3-2-MU)

Submitted:   April 24, 2003                    Decided:   May 1, 2003

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bertram Norman McElhiney, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge,
III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Bertram Norman McElhiney 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 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

dismissed by a district court solely on procedural grounds 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 find that McElhiney has not satisfied this standard.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal.   See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 123 S. Ct. 1029, 1034, 1039

(2003). 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