Smitherman v. Angelone , 55 F. App'x 206 ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                                UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 02-7262
    RONALD R. SMITHERMAN,
    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. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District
    Judge. (CA-01-540-2)
    Submitted:    January 30, 2003               Decided:   February 4, 2003
    Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Ronald R. Smitherman, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Eldridge Jeffrey,
    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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
    Ronald R. Smitherman, a state prisoner, 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 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).   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 subject to dismissal 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 reviewed
    the record and conclude that Smitherman has not satisfied either
    standard.     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
    2
    materials   before   the   court   and   argument   would   not    aid   the
    decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 02-7262

Citation Numbers: 55 F. App'x 206

Judges: Niemeyer, Per Curiam, Traxler, Widener

Filed Date: 2/4/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/6/2023