UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7543
MICHAEL G. KESELICA,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
J. MICHAEL STOUFFER, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF VIRGINIA,
Respondents - Appellees.
No. 04-6005
MICHAEL G. KESELICA,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
J. MICHAEL STOUFFER, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF VIRGINIA,
Respondents - Appellees.
No. 04-6215
MICHAEL G. KESELICA,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
J. MICHAEL STOUFFER, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF VIRGINIA,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate
Judge. (CA-02-575)
Submitted: April 14, 2004 Decided: June 3, 2004
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Nos. 03-7543, 04-6005, dismissed; No. 04-6215, affirmed by
unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael G. Keselica, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Bain Smith,
Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Michael G. Keselica seeks
to appeal the magistrate judge’s orders denying relief on his
petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000), and denying his motions for
reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and
60(a).*
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 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). 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)). In
No. 03-7543 and No. 04-6005, we have independently reviewed the
record and conclude that Keselica has not satisfied either
*
The parties consented to the magistrate judge’s jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000).
- 3 -
standard. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003).
Accordingly, we deny Keselica’s motions to supplement the record
and for a certificate of appealability and dismiss Keselica’s
appeals.
In No. 04-6215, we have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the
district court. See Keselica v. Stouffer, No. CA-02-575 (E.D. Va.
Dec. 4, 2003). We deny as moot Keselica’s motion for a certificate
of appealability.
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.
No. 03-7543 & No. 04-6005 - DISMISSED
No. 04-6215 - AFFIRMED
- 4 -