Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

100 F. App'x 947

Stowe v. Harkleroad

U.S. Courts of Appeals

Decided June 21, 2004

This page is marked noindex.

U.S. Courts of Appeals · decided 2004-06-21

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Slack v. McDaniel · Miller-El v. Cockrell Director Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division · Rose v. Lee

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion · Decided 2004-06-21

PER CURIAM.

¶1 James Poston Stowe seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely filed his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). When, as here, a district court dismisses a § 2254 petition solely on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue unless the petitioner can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that ju *948 rists 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 independently reviewed the record and conclude that Stowe 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 Stowe’s motion for 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.

¶2 DISMISSED

/100/fappx/947 · .json · Public domain