UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7437
MARK ANTHONY CUNNINGHAM,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
J. MICHAEL STOUFFER, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, Chief District Judge.
(CA-02-2219-S)
Submitted: December 19, 2002 Decided: December 31, 2002
Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mark Anthony Cunningham, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr.,
Attorney General, Mary Ann Rapp Ince, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Mark Anthony Cunningham, 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
Cunningham has not made the requisite showing. See Cunningham v.
Stouffer, No. CA-02-2219-S (D. Md. Sept. 12, 2002). Accordingly,
we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We
also deny Cunningham’s motion for appointment of counsel and
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
2
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3