UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6490
JOSEPH EDWARD KERN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District
Judge. (CA-02-360)
Submitted: May 29, 2003 Decided: June 5, 2003
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joseph Edward Kern, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Joseph Edward Kern, a state prisoner, 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 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). 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 a district court dismisses 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 conclude that Kern 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
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid in the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3