Barnes v. Commonwealth of VA , 61 F. App'x 74 ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 02-7389
    AARON LAMONT BARNES,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
    District Judge. (CA-02-736-AM)
    Submitted:   March 20, 2003                 Decided:   March 25, 2003
    Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Aaron Lamont Barnes, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Aaron Lamont Barnes seeks to appeal the district court’s
    orders denying relief on his petition filed under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
    (2000), and denying him motion for reconsideration.                   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.)
    (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 Barnes 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).                Accordingly, we deny Barnes’
    motion for a writ of mandamus and his motion for appointment of
    counsel       and   an    evidentiary      hearing,    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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 02-7389

Citation Numbers: 61 F. App'x 74

Judges: Hamilton, Per Curiam, Traxler, Williams

Filed Date: 3/25/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/6/2023