UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7322
SAMUEL ANTHONY MILES,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director, Virginia
Department of Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-01-814-2)
Submitted: November 7, 2002 Decided: November 15, 2002
Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Samuel Anthony Miles, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Andrew Witmer,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Samuel Anthony Miles appeals a district court’s order
accepting a magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss his 28
U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition as untimely. An appeal may not be
taken to this court from the final order in a habeas corpus
proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of
process issued by a state court 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. 2001) (quoting Slack v McDaniel,
529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).
We have reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons
stated by the district court that Miles has not made the requisite
showing. See Miles v. Angelone, No. CA-01-814-2 (E.D. Va. Aug. 26,
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
2
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3