Case ID: f-appx_57/html/0200-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Randy Richard LINAMEN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ron ANGELONE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 02-7872.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted March 6, 2003.
    Decided March 14, 2003.
    Randy Richard Linamen, Appellant Pro Se.
    Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

Randy Richard Linamen, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000)), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941, 122 S.Ct. 318, 151 L.Ed.2d 237 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Lina-men has not made .the requisite showing. Miller-El v. Cockrell, — U.S.-, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1039-40, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). Moreover, Linamen has waived his right to challenge the district court’s finding regarding timeliness because he did not challenge that finding in his informal briefs. 4th Cir. R. 34(b).

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Linamen’s motions for appointment of counsel and preliminary injunction. 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.

DISMISSED.