UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7514
CLAYTON LORENZO THOMAS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
RONALD HUTCHINSON, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL
FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge.
(CA-02-2572-JFM)
Submitted: February 19, 2004 Decided: February 25, 2004
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Clayton Lorenzo Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr.,
Attorney General, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Clayton Lorenzo Thomas appeals from the denial of his 28
U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition by the district court. An appeal may
not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding
unless a circuit judge or justice issues a certificate of
appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(2000). This court will not
issue a certificate of appealability as to claims dismissed by a
district court on procedural grounds unless the movant 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 reviewed the record and determine that Thomas has
not made the requisite showing. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537
U.S. 322, 336 (2003). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeal. Thomas’ motion for
appointment of counsel contained in his informal brief on appeal is
denied. 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 in the decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 2 -