Deshields v. Filbert ( 2003 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7577
WILLIAM H. DESHIELDS, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
WILLIAM O. FILBERT; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE
STATE OF MARYLAND,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CA-
01-4251-JFM)
Submitted: February 25, 2003 Decided: March 10, 2003
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William H. DeShields, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran,
Jr., Attorney General, Mary Ann Rapp Ince, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
William H. DeShields, Jr., seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying relief on his petition for habeas corpus
filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken to
this court from the final order arising out of 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, 534 U.S. 941 (2001). We have independently reviewed the
record and conclude for the reasons stated by the district court
that DeShields has not satisfied either standard. See DeShields v.
Filbert, No. CA-01-4251-JFM (D. Md. Sept. 23, 2002). Accordingly,
we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
2
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3