Court Opinion

ID: 1009948
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 20:04:15.976151+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:40.281709
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                      UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                          FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                No. 02-7822

JAMES A. EMERY,

                                                Petitioner - Appellant,

             versus

GEORGE M. WARREN,        JR.,   for   Commonwealth;
RONALD J. ANGELONE,

                                               Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District
Judge. (CA-01-570-7)

Submitted:    March 6, 2003                    Decided:   March 14, 2003

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James A. Emery, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     James A. Emery seeks to appeal the district court’s order

dismissing as procedurally defaulted 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, a district 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 Emery has not

made the requisite showing.   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 facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                           DISMISSED

                                2