Bristow v. Braxton , 55 F. App'x 176 ( 2003 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7859
STEVEN BRISTOW,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
DAVID A. BRAXTON, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (CA-02-1194-AM)
Submitted: January 16, 2003 Decided: January 27, 2003
Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Steven Bristow, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Steven Bristow, a Virginia inmate, seeks to appeal the
district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000)
petition as untimely. 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 § 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.) (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 Bristow has not made the
requisite showing. See Bristow v. Braxton, No. CA-02-1194-AM (E.D.
Va., filed Oct. 22, 2002 & entered Oct. 23, 2002). Accordingly, we
deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, deny Bristow’s motion to vacate the judgment of
conviction, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in
2
the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3