Keselica v. Stouffer

67 F. App'x 219
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Keselica v. Stouffer. Read the opinion of the Court — 100 F. App'x 142
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided June 20, 2003·No. 03-6160·Unpublished

Opinion

*220 PER CURIAM.

Michael G. Keselica, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) without prejudice. When, as here, a district court dismisses a § 2241 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, 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 that Keselica has not made the requisite showing. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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.

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

Keselica v. Stouffer, 67 F. App'x 219 (4th Cir. 2003).

67 F. App'x 219 (Keselica v. Stouffer) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Slack v. McDaniel
529 U.S. 473 (Supreme Court, 2000)
Miller-El v. Cockrell
537 U.S. 322 (Supreme Court, 2003)
Rose v. Lee
252 F.3d 676 (Fourth Circuit, 2001)
Martinez-Ceballoz v. United States
534 U.S. 941 (Supreme Court, 2001)