Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Miles v. Angelone, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    0 views3 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Samuel Miles' appeal of a district court order dismissing his habeas corpus petition as untimely. The district court accepted a magistrate's recommendation that Miles' 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition was not filed within the one-year statute of limitations. The appeals court denied Miles a certificate of appealability, finding that reasonable jurists would not debate whether the petition stated a valid constitutional claim or whether the district court's procedural ruling was correct. The appeal was dismissed without oral argument.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2002-11-15 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 02-7322

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Samuel Miles' appeal of a district court order dismissing his habeas corpus petition as untimely. The district court accepted a magistrate's recommendation that Miles' 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition was not filed within the one-year statute of limitations. The appeals court denied Miles a certificate of appealability, finding that reasonable jurists would not debate whether the petition stated a valid constitutional claim or whether the district court's procedural ruling was correct. The appeal was dismissed without oral argument.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    0 views3 pages

    Miles v. Angelone, 4th Cir. (2002)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Samuel Miles' appeal of a district court order dismissing his habeas corpus petition as untimely. The district court accepted a magistrate's recommendation that Miles' 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition was not filed within the one-year statute of limitations. The appeals court denied Miles a certificate of appealability, finding that reasonable jurists would not debate whether the petition stated a valid constitutional claim or whether the district court's procedural ruling was correct. The appeal was dismissed without oral argument.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 02-7322

    SAMUEL ANTHONY MILES,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    RONALD
    J.
    ANGELONE,
    Director,
    Department of Corrections,

    Virginia
    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

    district

    courts

    order

    accepting a magistrate judges 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.


    facts

    and

    legal

    We dispense with oral argument because the

    contentions

    are

    adequately

    presented

    in

    the

    materials

    before

    the

    court

    and

    argument

    would

    not

    aid

    the

    decisional process.

    DISMISSED

    You might also like