Court Opinion

ID: 1013193
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 20:57:07.01252+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:39:34.032775
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 04-6433

MILTON MORENO,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

ALTON BASKERVILLE,

                                            Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.  Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (CA-03-430)

Submitted: April 29, 2004                      Decided:   May 6, 2004

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Milton Moreno, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen R. McCullough, Assistant
Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Milton Moreno seeks to appeal the district court’s order

dismissing as untimely filed his petition 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. 2001) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.

473, 484 (2000)).    We have independently reviewed the record and

conclude that Moreno has not made the requisite showing.              See

Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003).         Accordingly, we

deny   Moreno’s   motion   to   proceed   in   forma   pauperis,   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 -