McCain v. Garrity , 53 F. App'x 275 ( 2002 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7242
MAURICE MCCAIN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
CHIEF WARDEN GARRITY, Greensville Federal
Corrections Facility,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge.
(CA-02-435)
Submitted: December 16, 2002 Decided: December 20, 2002
Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joan Augusta Harvill, Arlington, Virginia, for Appellant.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Maurice McCain, a District of Columbia prisoner, seeks to
appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition
filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000). 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
§ 2241 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, 122 S. Ct. 318(2001). We have reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons
stated by the district court that McCain has not made the requisite
showing. See McCain v. Garrity, No. CA-02-435 (E.D. Va. July 16,
2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and
dismiss the appeal. In addition, we grant McCain’s counsel’s motion
*
Because McCain was convicted in a District of Columbia
court, he is required to obtain a certificate of appealability in
order to proceed with this § 2241 petition. See Modley v. United
States Parole Comm’n, 278 F.3d 1306 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 123
S. Ct. 515 (2002).
2
to withdraw. 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