UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-8018
WILLIAM A. GROSS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
K. J. BASSETT, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, District
Judge. (CA-04-125-1-CMH)
Submitted: May 12, 2005 Decided: May 17, 2005
Before TRAXLER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William A. Gross, Appellant Pro Se. Kathleen Beatty Martin, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
William A. Gross seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) in
which he claimed there was insufficient evidence to support his
conviction. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a
§ 2254 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, 336 (2003);
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d
676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the
record and conclude that Gross has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
appeal.
In addition, Gross raises an ineffective assistance of counsel
claim for the first time in his appeal to this court. Because this
claim was not raised in the district court, Gross may not raise it
now on appeal. See Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th
Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability
- 2 -
and dismiss as to this claim as well. We deny Gross’ motion for
appointment of counsel. 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 -