UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-6974
JOSE MORALES,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
D. K. HORNING, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR
THE STATE OF MARYLAND,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA-
01-3711-CCB)
Submitted: October 24, 2002 Decided: November 6, 2002
Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jose Morales, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney
General, Ann Norman Bosse, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Jose Morales seeks to appeal the district court’s order
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 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). 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. 2001) (quoting Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). We have reviewed the record
and conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that
Morales has not made the requisite showing. See Morales v. Horning,
No. CA-01-3711-CCB (D. Md. May 17, 2002). Accordingly, we deny
Morales’ motion for appointment of counsel, deny a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
2
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3