UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7892
CHARLES LEE MARDUK KNIGHT EL,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director, Virginia
Department of Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge.
(CA-02-250-3)
Submitted: February 6, 2003 Decided: February 13, 2003
Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charles Lee Marduk Knight El, Appellant Pro Se. Leah Ann Darron,
Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Charles Lee Marduk Knight El seeks to appeal the district
court’s order dismissing as untimely 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 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, 534 U.S. 941 (2001). We have
reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the
district court that El has not made the requisite showing. See El
v. Angelone, No. CA-02-250-3 (E.D. Va. Nov. 19, 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