Court Opinion

ID: 1010137
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 20:06:53.933854+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:37:12.169436
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                      UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                          FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                               No. 02-7676

JOHN F. GASTON,

                                              Petitioner - Appellant,

             versus

RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia
Department of Corrections,

                                               Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District
Judge. (CA-02-671)

Submitted:    March 18, 2003                 Decided:   March 27, 2003

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John F. Gaston, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     John F. Gaston seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (2000),

but construed by the district court as a habeas corpus petition

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. 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

Gaston has not satisfied this standard. See Miller-El v. Cockrell,

   U.S.       , 2003 WL 431659, at *10 (U.S. Feb. 25, 2003) (No. 01-

7662); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) (2000).      Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.      We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

                                  2
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                     DISMISSED

                                3