UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7257
JASON ORTEGA,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of Virginia
Department of Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior
District Judge. (CA-01-826-3)
Submitted: October 24, 2002 Decided: November 13, 2002
Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jason Ortega, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Bain Smith, Assistant
Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Jason Ortega, a state prisoner, 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). 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 Ortega has not made the requisite showing. See
Ortega v. Angelone, No. CA-01-826-3 (E.D. Va. Aug. 13, 2002).
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
appeal. We deny the Government’s motion to strike Ortega’s
supplemental brief. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
2
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3