McClelland v. Angelone , 51 F. App'x 470 ( 2002 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-6984
STEPHEN E. MCCLELLAND,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia
Department of Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 02-7097
STEPHEN E. MCCLELLAND,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia
Department of Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 02-7396
STEPHEN E. MCCLELLAND,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia
Department of Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (CA-01-105-2)
Submitted: November 6, 2002 Decided: December 4, 2002
Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stephen E. McClelland, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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).
2
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Stephen E. McClelland seeks to
appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his petition
filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000), and denying his motions for
arbitration and for appointment of counsel. An appeal may not be
taken to this court from the final order in a habeas corpus
proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of
process issued by a state court 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.) (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 McClelland has not satisfied either standard.
See McClelland v. Angelone, No. CA-01-105-2 (E.D. Va. filed June 7,
3
2002, & entered June 10, 2002; filed June 17, 2002, & entered June
18, 2002; Aug. 13, 2002).
Accordingly, we deny certificates of appealability in each
appeal and dismiss the appeals. We deny McClelland’s motions for
appointment of counsel, to reconsider our order deferring action on
the motion for appointment of counsel, to transfer the record from
state court, and for an evidentiary hearing. 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
4