Smith v. Johnson ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 03-6619
    HARRISON LAMONT SMITH,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    GENE JOHNSON, Regional Director,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior
    District Judge. (CA-02-926-3)
    Submitted:   July 7, 2003                  Decided:   July 23, 2003
    Before WILKINSON and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Harrison Lamont Smith, 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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
    Harrison Lamont Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order dismissing as untimely his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     (2000) petition.
    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).    We have independently reviewed the
    record and conclude that Smith has not made the requisite showing.
    See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 
    537 U.S. 322
     (2003).      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: 03-6619

Judges: Wilkinson, Traxler, Hamilton

Filed Date: 7/23/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024