UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6281
FRED SHORES, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
THEODIS BECK,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr.,
District Judge. (CA-01-474-01)
Submitted: April 24, 2003 Decided: May 2, 2003
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Fred Shores, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Wallace-Smith, Assistant
Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Fred Shores, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s orders
denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000)
and denying his motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). 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 concluded that Shores has not made the requisite
showing. 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