Wallace v. Dotson

54 F. App'x 397
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 15, 2003
DocketNo. 02-7353
StatusPublished

This text of 54 F. App'x 397 (Wallace v. Dotson) 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
Wallace v. Dotson, 54 F. App'x 397 (4th Cir. 2003).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Fred Wallace, Jr., a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his habeas corpus petition, 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000), on procedural default grounds.

To be entitled to a certificate of appealability, Wallace must make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). When a district court dismisses solely on procedural grounds, the movant “must 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, 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). Upon examination of Wallace’s petition, we cannot conclude that reasonable jurists would find it debatable whether the district court correctly concluded that the petition was untimely filed. 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

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)
54 F. App'x 397, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wallace-v-dotson-ca4-2003.