Filed: April 4, 2003
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7727
(CA-02-1051-AM)
Ahmad Muhammad,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
Joseph Brooks, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
O R D E R
The court amends its opinion filed March 12, 2003, as follows:
On the cover sheet, section 4 -- the decided date is corrected
to read “March 13, 2003.”
For the Court - By Direction
/s/ Patricia S. Connor
Clerk
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7727
AHMAD MUHAMMAD,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
JOSEPH BROOKS, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District
Judge. (CA-02-1051-AM)
Submitted: March 6, 2003 Decided: March 13, 2003
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ahmad Muhammad, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Ahmad Muhammad 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 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 independently reviewed the
record and conclude that Muhammad has not made the requisite
showing. Accordingly, we deny Muhammad’s motion for a certificate
of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See Miller-El v. Cockrell,
U.S. , 2003 WL 431659, *10 (U.S. Feb. 25, 2003) (No. 01-
7662). 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
3