Court Opinion

ID: 1009028
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 19:49:31.444316+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:20.987519
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                      UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                          FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                               No. 02-7308

RAHEEM JABBAR HUNT,

                                              Petitioner - Appellant,

             versus

DAVID ROBINSON, Warden, Nottoway Correctional
Center,

                                               Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior
District Judge. (CA-01-802-3)

Submitted:    November 7, 2002            Decided:     November 15, 2002

Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenneth Clay Chrisman, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Robert
H. Anderson, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Raheem Jabbar Hunt 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 in which the detention complained of

arises out of process issued by a state court unless a circuit

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.                28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue

for claims addressed by a district court on the merits absent “a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”                  28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000).       As to claims dismissed by a district

court 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 reviewed the record

and conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that Hunt

has not satisfied either standard. See Hunt v. Robinson, No. CA-01-

802-3 (E.D. Va. Aug. 6, 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

                                        2
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

                                                        DISMISSED

                                3