Wayne Ralph Marshall v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 684 4th Cir. 2001 quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7802
WAYNE RALPH MARSHALL,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
SCOTT C. VACHRIS, Assistant Commonwealth
Attorney; MISHELENE N. MINOT, Commonwealth
Witness; PAGE TRUE,
Respondents - Appellees.
No. 03-7761
WAYNE RALPH MARSHALL,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
SCOTT C. VACHRIS, Assistant Commonwealth
Attorney; MISHELENE N. MINOT, Commonwealth
Witness; PAGE TRUE,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
Judge. (CA-02-816)
Submitted: March 8, 2004 Decided: March 16, 2004

-- 1 of 4 --

- 2 -
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Wayne Ralph Marshall, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 2 of 4 --

*The district court previously entered an order dismissing
Marshall’s petition for failure to comply with a court order. In
case no. 02-7802, this Court remanded the matter to the district
court so that the court could rule on Marshall’s motion for
reconsideration. After the court granted Marshall’s motion for
reconsideration, the court dismissed Marshall’s petition as
untimely and an appeal followed (case no. 03-7761).
- 3 -
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Wayne Ralph Marshall seeks
to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing his 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 (2000) petition as untimely and for failing to comply with
a court order, and denying his motion for reconsideration. * An
appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus
proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate
of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). When, as here,
a district court dismisses a § 2254 petition 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)).
In No. 03-7761, we have independently reviewed the record
and conclude that Marshall has not made the requisite showing. See
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003). Accordingly, we
deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

-- 3 of 4 --

- 4 -
In No. 02-7802, we dismiss the appeal as moot because the
district court granted reconsideration of its order dismissing
Marshall’s § 2254 petition for failure to comply with a court
order.
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 of 4 --