UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7887
MARK ROBINSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District
Judge. (CA-02-790-7)
Submitted: May 28, 2004 Decided: June 28, 2004
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mark Robinson, Appellant Pro Se. John H. McLees, Jr., OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Mark Robinson seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying his motion for reconsideration, after its earlier
conditional grant of reconsideration of its order denying without
prejudice Robinson’s petition for relief 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)(1)(2000). When a district court dismisses a
§ 2254 petition 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)). A certificate of
appealability will not issue for claims addressed by the district
court on the merits absent “a substantial showing of the denial of
a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)(2000). We have
independently reviewed the record and conclude that Robinson has
not made the requisite showing. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537
U.S. 322, 336 (2003). Accordingly, we deny Robinson’s motions for
- 2 -
general relief, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss
the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). 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 -