Sadler v. Pendergraph , 53 F. App'x 263 ( 2002 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 02-6953
    WALTER LEE SADLER,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    JIM PENDERGRAPH, Sheriff,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief
    District Judge. (CA-02-194-3-MU)
    Submitted:   December 16, 2002         Decided:     December 19, 2002
    Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Walter Lee Sadler, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Walter Lee Sadler 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 to this court 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 Sadler has not made the requisite showing.        See Sadler v.
    Pendergraph, No. CA-02-194-3-MU (W.D.N.C. filed June 7, 2002;
    entered June 11, 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: 02-6953

Citation Numbers: 53 F. App'x 263

Judges: Luttig, Michael, Motz

Filed Date: 12/19/2002

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024