Case Name: Michael Charles WEASE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ronald J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-12-13
Citations: 52 F. App'x 628
Docket Number: No. 02-7457
Parties: Michael Charles WEASE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ronald J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before LUTTIG, DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 52
Pages: 628–629

Head Matter:
Michael Charles WEASE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ronald J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 02-7457.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 19, 2002.
Decided Dec. 13, 2002.
Michael Charles Wease, Appellant Pro Se. Virginia Bidwell Theisen, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before LUTTIG, DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
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. § 2258(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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (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