Wallace v. Dotson ( 2003 )


Menu:
  • Rehearing granted by order
    filed 3/17/03; opinion
    filed 1/15/03 is vacated
    UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 02-7353
    FRED WALLACE, JR.,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    S. DOTSON, Warden,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
    District Judge. (CA-01-868-AM)
    Submitted:   December 16, 2002            Decided:   January 15, 2003
    Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Fred Wallace, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.    Thomas Drummond Bagwell,
    Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Fred Wallace, Jr., a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the
    district court’s order dismissing his habeas corpus petition, 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     (2000), on procedural default grounds.
    To be entitled to a certificate of appealability, Wallace must
    make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
    right.”     
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(2) (2000).           When a district court
    dismisses     solely    on   procedural     grounds,       the    movant    “must
    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
     (2000)), cert. denied, 
    122 S. Ct. 318
     (2001).        Upon examination of Wallace’s petition, we
    cannot conclude that reasonable jurists would find it debatable
    whether the district court correctly concluded that the petition
    was   untimely   filed.      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
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 02-7353

Filed Date: 3/18/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/31/2014