Chandler v. Angelone (4th Cir. 2002)

Federal Circuits, 4th Cir. (December 24, 2002)

Docket number: 02-6670

Permanent Link: http://vlex.com/vid/chandler-v-angelone-18207647
Id. vLex: VLEX-18207647

Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)

Document language

Request manual translation

Search in this document

Document options

Citations:

Loading article preview... cerrar

U.S. Supreme Court - Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Cir. - John Hardy Rose, Petitioner-Appellant, v. R. C. Lee, Warden, Central Prison, Raleigh, North Carolina, Respondent-Appellee. John Hardy Rose, Petitioner-Appellee, v. R. C. Lee, Warden, Central Prison, Raleigh, North Carolina, Respondent-Appellant., 252 F.3d 676 (4th Cir. 2001) Petitioner-Appellant, v. R. C. Lee, Warden, Central Prison, Raleigh, North Carolina, Respondent-Appellee. John Hardy Rose, Petitioner-Appellee, v. R. C. Lee, Warden, Central Prison, Raleigh, North Carolina, Respondent-Appellant.

See other documents that cite the same legislation

Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-6670 LINWOOD EARL CHANDLER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus

RONALD J. ANGELONE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CA-00-1128-AM)

Submitted: December 9, 2002 Decided: December 24, 2002

Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Linwood Earl Chandler, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Linwood Earl Chandler seeks to appeal the district court§ 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.

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 § 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 Â“(1) Â‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional rightÂ’ and (2) Â‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.Â’Â” Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)), cert. denied , 122 S. Ct. 318 (2001). We have reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that Chandler has not satisfied either standard. See Chandler v. Angelone , No. CA-00-1128-AM (E.D. Va. Mar. 20, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny ChandlerÂ’s motion for judicial notice. 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