UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7679
BERNIE J.E. DINGLE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; CHARLIE CONDON,
Attorney General,
Respondents - Appellees.
No. 05-6337
BERNIE J.E. DINGLE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; CHARLIE CONDON,
Attorney General,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge.
(CA-02-3422-3-26BC)
Submitted: July 14, 2005 Decided: August 2, 2005
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bernie J.E. Dingle, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief
Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Bernie J.E. Dingle seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
(2000) (Appeal No. 04-7679), and his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion
(Appeal No. 05-6337). 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). 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) (2000). 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)).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Dingle has not satisfied either standard. See Miller-El v.
Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003). Accordingly, we deny
certificates of appealability, deny Dingle’s motion to compel, and
dismiss the appeals. 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
- 4 -