Court Opinion

ID: 1009885
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 20:03:00.411717+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:35:16.152786
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 02-7756

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

MONTEITH LAMAR JOHNSON,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District      Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham.       James A. Beaty, Jr.,
District Judge. (CR-98-338, CA-02-375)

Submitted:   February 20, 2003         Decided:     February 26, 2003

Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Monteith Lamar Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Douglas Cannon, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Monteith Lamar Johnson 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).   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, 122 S. Ct. 318 (2001).           We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons

stated by the district court that Johnson has not satisfied this

standard.    See United States v. Johnson, Nos. CR-998-33; CA-02-375

(M.D.N.C. Oct. 1, 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 materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

                                                          DISMISSED

                                  2