Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

54 F. App'x 149

Eury v. Young

U.S. Courts of Appeals

Decided December 31, 2002

U.S. Courts of Appeals · decided 2002-12-31

Cited by 1 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 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 · Barajas-Aguilar v. United States

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion · Decided 2002-12-31

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1 Muhammad Abd Saleem Eury, a Virginia prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition for failure to exhaust state remedies. 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 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.) (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).

¶2 We have reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that Eury has not made the requisite showing. See Eury v. Young, No. CA-02-908-2 (W.D.Va. Aug. 14, 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.

¶3 DISMISSED.

/54/fappx/149 · .json · Public domain