Richards v. Angelone , 60 F. App'x 478 ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                                UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 03-6098
    MARK E. RICHARDS,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia
    Department of Corrections,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge.
    (CA-02-142-3)
    Submitted:    March 20, 2003                  Decided:   April 1, 2003
    Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Mark E. Richards, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Eldridge Jeffrey, III,
    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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
    Mark E. Richards seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order
    denying relief on his petition filed under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     (2000)
    and denying his motion filed under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules
    of Civil Procedure.*        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)).                    We
    have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Richards
    has   not     satisfied     either   standard.    Accordingly,      we   deny    a
    *
    By consent of the parties, the decision below was rendered
    by a magistrate judge. See 
    28 U.S.C. § 636
    (c) (2000).
    2
    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
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 03-6098

Citation Numbers: 60 F. App'x 478

Judges: King, Michael, Per Curiam, Williams

Filed Date: 4/1/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/6/2023