UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6307
MARK A. HARRIS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
D. A. GARRAGHTY, Chief Warden, Greenville
Correctional Center,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District
Judge. (CA-01-789)
Submitted: April 24, 2003 Decided: May 5, 2003
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mark A. Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Mozley Harris, OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Mark A. Harris 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 to this court from the final order in a
habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of
arises out of process issued by a state court unless a circuit
justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue
for claims addressed by a district court on the merits absent “a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). As to claims dismissed by a district
court 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 Harris has not satisfied either standard. See Miller-El v.
Cockrell, 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
2
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3