UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-6105
WILLIAM STEWART MALONE, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
DIRECTOR OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District
Judge. (CA-00-1562-AM)
Submitted: October 15, 2003 Decided: October 24, 2003
Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Stewart Malone, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
William Stewart Malone, Jr., seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 (2000). Pursuant to a remand order of this court, the
district court attempted to address Malone’s pending motion under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). When it became apparent that Malone was no
longer incarcerated and had failed to apprise the district court of
a forwarding address, the district court dismissed the action.
Accordingly, Malone’s appeal of the denial of his § 2254 petition
is now ripe for review.
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 absent “a substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by
demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his
constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive
procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or
wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, , 123 S. Ct.
1029, 1040 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000);
Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S.
941 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Malone has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
2
deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of
appealability, and dismiss the appeal. 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
3