Walker v. Kupec , 90 F. App'x 27 ( 2003 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7306
EVERETT GARR WALKER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
ROBERT J. KUPEC, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
THE STATE OF MARYLAND,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.
(CA-03-569)
Submitted: December 11, 2003 Decided: December 22, 2003
Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Everett Garr Walker, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Everett Garr Walker seeks to appeal the district court's order
denying his habeas petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(2000). This court may grant a certificate of appealability only
if the appellant makes a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). Where, 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. 2001) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.
473, 484 (2000)). We have independently reviewed the record and
conclude that Walker has not made the requisite showing. See
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (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