Miles v. Angelone

50 F. App'x 165
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Miles v. Angelone. Read the opinion of the Court — 17 F. App'x 181
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided November 15, 2002·No. 02-7322·Unpublished

Opinion

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 “(l)’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, 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 Miles has not made the requisite showing. See Miles v. Angelone, No. CA-01-814-2 (E.D.Va. Aug. 26, 2002). *166 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.

DISMISSED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Miles v. Angelone, 50 F. App'x 165 (4th Cir. 2002).

50 F. App'x 165 (Miles v. Angelone) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Slack v. McDaniel
529 U.S. 473 (Supreme Court, 2000)
Rose v. Lee
252 F.3d 676 (Fourth Circuit, 2001)