Jeffreys v. Haynes , 53 F. App'x 706 ( 2003 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7485
CARL JEFFREYS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
JAY HAYNES, Superintendent of the Caswell
Correctional Center,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District
Judge. (CA-01-612-5-HO)
Submitted: December 19, 2002 Decided: January 6, 2003
Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Carl Jeffreys, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Carl Jeffreys, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 (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). 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 Jeffreys
has not made the requisite showing. See Jeffreys v. Haynes, No. CA-
01-612-5-HO (E.D.N.C. Aug. 21, 2002); see also Davis v. Allsbrooks,
778 F.2d 168, 174-76 (4th Cir. 1985) (holding that the Wainwright
v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72, 87 (1977), bar of federal habeas review
applies when a state court has found a procedural default
2
regardless of whether the state court alternatively has discussed
the merits). 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
3