Saeed Sheikh v. Ronald Angelone

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7826
SAEED SHEIKH,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
RONALD ANGELONE,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District
Judge. (CA-03-113-A)
Submitted: March 25, 2004 Decided: March 31, 2004
Before TRAXLER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas Michael Curtis, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Eugene
Paul Murphy, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 3 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Saeed Sheikh 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 in which the detention complained of arises out of
process issued by a state court 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. 2001) (quoting Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). We have independently
reviewed the record and conclude that Sheikh has not satisfied
either standard. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336
(2003). 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

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --