Deshields v. Filbert

56 F. App'x 623
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedMarch 10, 2003
Docket02-7577
StatusUnpublished

This text of 56 F. App'x 623 (Deshields v. Filbert) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Deshields v. Filbert, 56 F. App'x 623 (4th Cir. 2003).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

William H. DeShields, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition for habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken to this court from the final order arising out of a habeas corpus proceeding 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.) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S, 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000)), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941, 122 S.Ct. 318, 151 L.Ed.2d 237 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that DeShields has not satisfied either standard. See DeShields v. Filbert, No. CA-01-4251-JFM (D.Md. Sept. 23, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument *624 because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Slack v. McDaniel
529 U.S. 473 (Supreme Court, 2000)
Rose v. Lee
252 F.3d 676 (Fourth Circuit, 2001)
Martinez-Ceballoz v. United States
534 U.S. 941 (Supreme Court, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
56 F. App'x 623, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/deshields-v-filbert-ca4-2003.