UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7482
EDWARD ALVIN MORTON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
WILLIAM S. HAINES,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 02-7544
EDWARD ALVIN MORTON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
WILLIAM S. HAINES,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, Chief
District Judge. (CA-01-41-1)
Submitted: November 21, 2002 Decided: December 4, 2002
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Edward Alvin Morton, Appellant Pro Se. Dawn Ellen Warfield, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
Edward Alvin Morton, 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.)
(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 Morton
has not made the requisite showing. See Morton v. Haines, No. CA-
01-41-1 (N.D.W. Va. Sept. 25, 2002). Accordingly, we deny
certificates of appealability and dismiss the appeals. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
*
Morton filed two notices of appeal from the district court’s
final judgment.
3
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
4