UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6841
MICHAEL D. HUDGINS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
JON P. GALLEY; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE
OF MARYLAND,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, Chief District Judge.
(CA-02-3752-BEL)
Submitted: October 1, 2003 Decided: October 21, 2003
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael D. Hudgins, Appellant Pro Se. Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Michael D. Hudgins seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. 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 Hudgins has not made the requisite
showing. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 123 S. Ct. 1029
(2003). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and
dismiss the appeal. We also deny Hudgins’s motion for preparation
of a transcript at government expense. 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
2