Dana Marvin Holloman v. Director of Virginia Department of Corrections

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6875
DANA MARVIN HOLLOMAN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
DIRECTOR OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (CA-03-169-AM)
Submitted: October 3, 2003 Decided: November 17, 2003
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dana Marvin Holloman, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Dana Marvin Holloman seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition as time-
barred under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of
1996. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) (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
“(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 Holloman has not made the requisite showing. See Miller-El v.
Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, , 123 S. Ct. 1029, 1039 (2003).
Accordingly, we deny 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 --