UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7719
GARY WAYNE HENDRICKS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
S. K. YOUNG,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge.
(CA-01-758-7)
Submitted: February 6, 2003 Decided: February 12, 2003
Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gary Wayne Hendricks, Appellant Pro Se. John H. McLees, Jr., OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Gary Wayne Hendricks 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). A certificate of appealability will
not issue for claims addressed by a district court on the merits
absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). As to claims dismissed by
a district court 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 Hendricks has not satisfied
either standard. See Hendricks v. Young, CA-01-758-7 (W.D. Va. Oct.
15, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and
dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the
2
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3