Willie Love Hamilton v. Patrick Conroy

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7899
WILLIE LOVE HAMILTON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
PATRICK CONROY; JOSEPH CURRAN,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District
Judge. (CA-02-625-WMN)
Submitted: February 4, 2003 Decided: February 14, 2003
Before WILKINS and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Willie Love Hamilton, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Willie Love Hamilton 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 a final
order denying relief under § 2254 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 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.) (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 Hamilton has not made the requisite showing. See
Hamilton v. Conroy, No. CA-02-625 (D. Md. Nov. 6, 2002).
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
appeal. 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

-- 2 of 2 --