Miles v. Angelone

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7109
RONALD MILES,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
RONALD ANGELONE,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District
Judge. (CA-00-204)
Submitted: February 6, 2003 Decided: February 20, 2003
Before WILKINS, Chief Judge, and MICHAEL and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronald Miles, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Drummond Bagwell, Assistant
Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Ronald Miles seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying relief on his motion for reconsideration pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 60(b) of the denial of his petition filed under 28
U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken to this court from
the final order arising out of a habeas corpus proceeding unless a
circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not
issue for claims addressed by a district court on the merits absent
“a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). As to claims dismissed by a district
court 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)), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941(2001). We have reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons
stated by the district court that Miles has not satisfied either
standard. See Miles v. Angelone, No. CA-00-204 (E.D. Va. July 9,
2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and
dismiss the appeal. We deny Miles’ motion for discovery, motion
2
for appointment of counsel, motion requesting that a single judge
act on his motions, and motion for judicial notice and review of
documents in the record. We deny Miles’ motion for 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
3