Woodfin v. Angelone , 51 F. App'x 919 ( 2002 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-6584
KENNETH WAYNE WOODFIN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
RONALD ANGELONE, Director,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge.
(CA-01-417-3)
Submitted: November 7, 2002 Decided: December 9, 2002
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kenneth Wayne Woodfin, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Bain Smith,
Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Kenneth Wayne Woodfin 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 a final
order denying relief under § 2254 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 reviewed the record and conclude
for the reasons stated by the magistrate judge that Woodfin has not
satisfied the standards under § 2253(c)(2) or Rose.* See Woodfin
v. Angelone, No. CA-01-417-3 (E.D. Va. April 1, 2002). Accordingly,
*
This case was decided by a magistrate judge exercising
jurisdiction upon consent of the parties. 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)
(2000).
2
we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). 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