Barnes v. Angelone , 54 F. App'x 144 ( 2002 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-6962
CLIFTON BARNES,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
RONALD ANGELONE, Virginia Department of
Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (CA-02-391-AM)
Submitted: December 19, 2002 Decided: December 31, 2002
Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Clifton Barnes, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Clifton Barnes 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 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 122 S. Ct. 318(2001). We have reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons
stated by the district court that Barnes has not made the requisite
showing. See Barnes v. Angelone, No. CA-02-391-AM (E.D. Va. filed
May 29, 2002 & entered May 30, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a
certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c) (2000). We deny Barnes’ motions for preparation of
transcripts at government expense, oral argument, and appointment
of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
2
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3