Wills v. Robinson , 55 F. App'x 203 ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                                UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 02-7015
    MICHAEL P. WILLS,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    A. D. ROBINSON, Warden, Nottoway Correctional
    Center,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
    District Judge. (CA-02-549)
    Submitted:    January 30, 2003               Decided:   February 4, 2003
    Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Michael P. Wills, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Michael P. Wills, a Virginia 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). 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, 
    122 S. Ct. 318
     (2001).      We
    have reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the
    district court that Wills has not made the requisite showing.   See
    Wills v. Robinson, No. CA-02-549 (E.D. Va. filed June 14, 2002;
    entered June 17, 2002).     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 materials before the court and argument would not
    aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 02-7015

Citation Numbers: 55 F. App'x 203

Judges: Niemeyer, Per Curiam, Traxler, Widener

Filed Date: 2/4/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/6/2023