Android Vicson Taylor v. RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of Virginia Department of Corrections

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6435
ANDROID VICSON TAYLOR,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of Virginia
Department of Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District
Judge. (CA-02-926-A)
Submitted: July 10, 2003 Decided: July 16, 2003
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Android Vicson Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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).

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Android Vicson Taylor, a state prisoner, 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 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.) (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 Taylor has not
made the requisite showing. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S.
322 (2003). Accordingly, we deny Taylor’s motion for a certificate
of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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 --