Court Opinion

ID: 1010503
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 20:12:36.268368+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:36:10.047972
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 03-6414

THEODORE SHOEMAKER,

                                            Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

WILLIAM    HAINES,     Warden,     Huttonsville
Correctional Center,

                                             Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. W. Craig Broadwater,
District Judge. (CA-01-20)

Submitted:   April 24, 2003                    Decided:   May 5, 2003

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Theodore Shoemaker, Appellant Pro Se. Dawn Ellen Warfield, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West
Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

      Theodore Shoemaker seeks to appeal from the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

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,

the lower 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 independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Shoemaker has not satisfied this standard.

See   Miller-El   v.    Cockrell,   123   S.   Ct.   1029,    1040    (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