UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6153
RICHARD HORTON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
DOUG MITCHELL, Superintendent,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Graham C. Mullen, Chief
District Judge. (CA-02-127-5-1MU)
Submitted: April 17, 2003 Decided: April 23, 2003
Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Richard Horton, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Richard Horton seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. An appeal
may not be taken to this Court 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) (2000). When,
as here, a district court dismisses a habeas petition 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 Horton has not made the requisite showing.
Miller-El v. Cockrell, U.S. , 123 S. Ct. 1029 (2003).
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