William H. Deshields, Jr v. William O. Filbert

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7682
WILLIAM H. DESHIELDS, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
WILLIAM O. FILBERT; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE
STATE OF MARYLAND,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CA-
01-4252)
Submitted: March 27, 2003 Decided: April 14, 2003
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William H. DeShields, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran,
Jr., Attorney General, Mary Ann Rapp Ince, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
William H. DeShields, Jr., seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken to this court from the
final order arising out of 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) (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.) (quoting Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941
(2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that DeShields has not satisfied either standard. See Miller-El v.
Cockrell, U.S. , 123 S. Ct. 1029 (2003). Accordingly, we
deny DeShields’s motion to prepare post-conviction transcript at
government expense, deny a certificate of appealability, and
dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the

-- 2 of 3 --

3
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --