UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7547
PAUL F. LEE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; RON
ANGELONE; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE COMMONWEALTH
OF VIRGINIA,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District
Judge. (CA-02-58-7)
Submitted: December 19, 2002 Decided: January 7, 2003
Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Paul F. Lee, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Paul Murphy, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Paul F. Lee, a Virginia 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 from the final order in
a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice of 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 Lee has not made the requisite showing. See Lee v.
Department of Corr., No. CA-02-58-7 (W.D. Va. Aug. 29, 2002).
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of 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
2