Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

50 F. App'x 165

Miles v. Angelone

U.S. Courts of Appeals

Decided November 15, 2002

U.S. Courts of Appeals · decided 2002-11-15

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

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion · Decided 2002-11-15

PER CURIAM.

¶1 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)).

¶2 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.

¶3 DISMISSED.

/50/fappx/165 · .json · Public domain