UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6084
BRIAN D. HILL,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia
Department of Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 03-6090
BRIAN D. HILL,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia
Department of Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (CA-02-899-2, CA-02-900-2)
Submitted: March 20, 2002 Decided: March 31, 2003
Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Brian D. Hill, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
Brian Hill, a Virginia inmate, seeks to appeal the district
court’s orders denying relief on his petitions filed under 28
U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). However, 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, 122 S. Ct. 318
(2001).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Hill has not made the requisite showing. See Miller-El v. Cockrell,
U.S. , 2003 WL 431659, at *10 (U.S. Feb. 25, 2003) (No. 01-
7662). Accordingly, although we grant Hill’s motion to proceed in
forma pauperis, we deny a certificate of appealability for each
appeal and dismiss Hill’s appeals. Additionally, we deny Hill’s
motion for preparation of a transcript at government expense and
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
3
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
4