UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6189
CURTIS LEON TAYLOR, SR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
FRANK E. MARDAVICH,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District
Judge. (CA-02-110-7)
Submitted: July 29, 2003 Decided: October 10, 2003
Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Curtis Leon Taylor, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Timothy R. Spencer,
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY, Danville, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Curtis Leon Taylor, Sr., 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) (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. 2001) (quoting Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). We have independently reviewed
the record and conclude that Taylor has not satisfied either
standard. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003).
Accordingly, we deny Taylor’s motion for a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
2
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3