Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

53 F. App'x 305

Lesane v. Rushton

U.S. Courts of Appeals

Decided December 24, 2002

U.S. Courts of Appeals · decided 2002-12-24

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 · Barajas-Aguilar v. United States

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion · Decided 2002-12-24

PER CURIAM.

¶1 Michael B. Lesane seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s report and dismissing for failure to exhaust state remedies his petition filed 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 *306 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.) (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 reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that Lesane has not made the requisite showing. See Lesane v. Rushton, No. CA-02-146 (D.S.C. Aug. 5, 2002). 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.

¶2 DISMISSED.

/53/fappx/305 · .json · Public domain