Ellis v. Jarvis , 61 F. App'x 100 ( 2003 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7788
COOLIDGE FRANK ELLIS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
LARRY JARVIS, Warden; BLAND CORRECTIONAL
CENTER,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District
Judge. (CA-02-914-7)
Submitted: March 24, 2003 Decided: April 17, 2003
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Coolidge Ellis, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Coolidge Frank Ellis, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the
district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254(2000) petition. 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. See 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 Ellis has not
made the requisite showing. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, U.S.
, 2003 WL 431659, at *10 (U.S. Feb. 25, 2003) (No. 01-7662). In
particular, we find that Ellis failed to properly seek permission
from this court to file a successive petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2244 (2000). To the extent that Ellis raises the issue of
authorization from this court for relief under § 2254, he has
failed to file a § 2244 application and this court did not consider
the Statement of Facts dated September 30, 2002, to be such.
2
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). 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
3