Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

51 F. App'x 480

Barritt v. Painter

U.S. Courts of Appeals

Decided December 4, 2002

U.S. Courts of Appeals · decided 2002-12-04

Cited by 1 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2003

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 · Rose v. Lee

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion · Decided 2002-12-04

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1 Robert L. Martin Barritt seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be tak *481 en 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 on procedural grounds, a certificate of ap-pealability 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 ruhng.’ ” 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 conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that Barritt has not made the requisite showing. See Barritt v. Painter, No. CA-01-30-5 (N.D.W.Va. Sept. 20, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

¶2 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.

¶3 DISMISSED.

/51/fappx/480 · .json · Public domain