UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6462
ABRA FAITH NEWMAN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; WILLIAM N.
ALEXANDER, II,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District
Judge. (CA-03-126-7)
Submitted: August 14, 2003 Decided: August 20, 2003
Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Abra Faith Newman, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Abra Faith Newman seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing without prejudice her petition filed under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 (2000), and denying her motion for reconsideration. 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 conclude that Newman has not made the requisite showing.
See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, , 123 S. Ct. 1029, 1039
(2003). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny
Newman’s motion for appointment of counsel, and dismiss the appeal.
We deny as moot Newman’s motion to hold the appeal in abeyance. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
2
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3