UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7872
RANDY RICHARD LINAMEN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
RON ANGELONE, Director, Virginia Department of
Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
Judge. (CA-02-760-AM)
Submitted: March 6, 2003 Decided: March 14, 2003
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Randy Richard Linamen, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Randy Richard Linamen, 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 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 (2000)),
cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941 (2001). We have independently reviewed
the record and conclude that Linamen has not made the requisite
showing. Miller-El v. Cockrell, U.S. , 2003 WL 431659, at
*10 (U.S. Feb. 25, 2003) (No. 01-7662). Moreover, Linamen has
waived his right to challenge the district court’s finding
regarding timeliness because he did not challenge that finding in
his informal briefs. 4th Cir. R. 34(b).
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and
dismiss the appeal. We also deny Linamen’s motions for appointment
of counsel and preliminary injunction. We dispense with oral
2
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3