Wease v. Angelone , 52 F. App'x 628 ( 2002 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7457
MICHAEL CHARLES WEASE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia
Department of Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge.
(CA-02-163-2)
Submitted: November 19, 2002 Decided: December 13, 2002
Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Charles Wease, Appellant Pro Se. Virginia Bidwell Theisen,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Michael C. Wease, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the
district court’s order dismissing his habeas corpus petition, 28
U.S.C. § 2254 (2000), as time-barred. The district court dismissed
the petition as untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).
To be entitled to a certificate of appealability, Wease must
make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). When a district court
dismisses solely on procedural grounds, the movant “must
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 (2000)). Upon examination
of Wease’s petition, we cannot conclude that reasonable jurists
would find it debatable whether the district court correctly
concluded that the petition was untimely filed. Accordingly, we
deny Wease’s motion for appointment of counsel, deny a certificate
of appealability, and dismiss the appeal.
DISMISSED
2