Bryant v. Angelone ( 2003 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6725
JOHN EDWARD BRYANT,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
RONALD ANGELONE, Director, Virginia Department
of Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District
Judge. (CA-02-1259-AM)
Submitted: July 10, 2003 Decided: July 17, 2003
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John Edward Bryant, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Kathleen Beatty Martin,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 CURIAM:
John Edward Bryant 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 to this court from the final order in a
habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of
arises out of process issued by a state court 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. 2001) (quoting Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). We have independently reviewed
the record and conclude that Bryant has not satisfied either
standard. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 123 S. Ct. 1029 (2003).
Accordingly, we deny Bryant’s motion for a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Bryant’s motions
for appointment of counsel and to proceed under Fed. R. App. P.
2
30(f) as unnecessary. 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