Smith v. Catoe , 51 F. App'x 436 ( 2002 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-6989
ROBERT JERRY SMITH, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
WILLIAM D. CATOE, Director of South Carolina
Department of Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (CA-00-2983-9-10)
Submitted: November 21, 2002 Decided: December 2, 2002
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert Jerry Smith, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Charles Molony Condon,
Attorney General, William Edgar Salter, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Robert Jerry Smith, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
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). 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) (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
district court that Smith has not satisfied either standard. See
Smith v. Catoe, No. CA-00-2983-9-10 (D.S.C. May 29, 2002).
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3