Roach v. Angelone ( 2003 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6529
WILLIAM HENRY ROACH,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director Virginia
Department of Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (CA-02-734)
Submitted: June 12, 2003 Decided: June 19, 2003
Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Henry Roach, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Paul Murphy, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIUM:
William Henry Roach, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the
district court 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 a district court dismisses 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 that Roach has not satisfied
either standard. See Mitchell-El v. Cockrell, 123 S. Ct. 1029(2003). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and
dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral arguments because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
2
materials before the court and argument would not aid in the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3