Yiaadey v. Angelone

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7535
JOHN ARTHUR YIAADEY,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
RONALD ANGELONE,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge.
(CA-01-96-7)
Submitted: January 27, 2003 Decided: February 10, 2003
Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John Arthur Yiaadey, Appellant Pro Se. Leah Ann Darron, Assistant
Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
John Arthur Yiaadey 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.) (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 Yiaadey has not satisfied either
standard. See Yiaadey v. Angelone, CA-01-96-7 (W.D. Va. filed Aug.
8, 2002; entered Aug. 9, 2002). We deny the motion for appointment
of appellant counsel. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
2
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