Turner v. Director, Department of Corrections , 60 F. App'x 452 ( 2003 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6051
RONNEY EARL TURNER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, District
Judge. (CA-01-1806-AM)
Submitted: March 20, 2003 Decided: March 28, 2003
Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronney Earl Turner, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Paul Murphy, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Ronney Earl Turner 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)), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941(2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Turner has not satisfied either standard. 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
2
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3