Deshields v. Filbert , 56 F. App'x 623 ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 02-7577
    WILLIAM H. DESHIELDS, JR.,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    WILLIAM O. FILBERT; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE
    STATE OF MARYLAND,
    Respondents - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CA-
    01-4251-JFM)
    Submitted:   February 25, 2003             Decided:   March 10, 2003
    Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    William H. DeShields, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran,
    Jr., Attorney General, Mary Ann Rapp Ince, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
    GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    William H. DeShields, Jr., seeks to appeal the district
    court’s order denying relief on his petition for habeas corpus
    filed under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     (2000).   An appeal may not be taken to
    this court from the final order arising out of 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 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.)
    (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 for the reasons stated by the district court
    that DeShields has not satisfied either standard. See DeShields v.
    Filbert, No. CA-01-4251-JFM (D. Md. Sept. 23, 2002).   Accordingly,
    we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.   We
    dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
    2
    are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
    argument would not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 02-7577

Citation Numbers: 56 F. App'x 623

Judges: Luttig, Per Curiam, Shedd, Williams

Filed Date: 3/10/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/6/2023