Sanders v. Lee
This text of 90 F. App'x 47 (Sanders v. Lee) 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.
Opinion
Anthony Jesus Sanders has filed a motion for a certificate of appealability concerning the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition by the district court. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit judge or justice issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). This court will not issue a certificate of appealability as to claims dismissed by a district court on procedural grounds unless the movant 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000)).
We have reviewed the record and determine that Sanders has not made the requisite showing. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. Sanders’s “Motion of Retention of the Record” is denied as moot. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court *48 and argument would not aid in the deci-sional process.
DISMISSED
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
90 F. App'x 47, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sanders-v-lee-ca4-2004.