Coleman v. Garraghty ( 2003 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7201
DARNELL COLEMAN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
DAVID A. GARRAGHTY, Chief Warden Greensville
Correctional Center,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District
Judge. (CA-02-431)
Submitted: June 11, 2003 Decided: June 25, 2003
Before LUTTIG, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Darnell Coleman, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Darnell Coleman seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing as untimely filed his petition 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, 534 U.S. 941 (2001). After considering our
recent decision in Wade v. Robinson, 327 F.3d 328 (4th Cir. 2003),
and independently reviewing the record, we conclude that Coleman
has not made the requisite showing. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 123
S. Ct. 1029, 1039 (2003). Accordingly, we deny Coleman’s motion
for appointment of counsel, deny his motion for a certificate of
appealability, and dismiss the appeal.
2
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