UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6031
WILLIAM H. BRANCH, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
DIRECTOR OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief
District Judge. (CA-02-1642-AM)
Submitted: April 17, 2003 Decided: April 22, 2003
Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William H. Branch, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
William H. Branch, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
(2000). This Court may only grant a certificate of appealability
if the appellant makes a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (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 Branch
has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 123 S. Ct. 1029
(2003). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and
dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). 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