court on the merits absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude Fair-cloth has not made the requisite showing. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1039-40, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). 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. * To the extent Faircloth seeks to raise issues not properly presented to the district court, we find they are waived. See Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir.1993)
holding that issues raised for the first time on appeal will not be considered absent exceptional circumstances of plain error or fundamental miscarriage of justice holding that issues raised for the first time on appeal will not be considered holding that issues raised for the first time on appeal are generally waived absent exceptional circumstances holding claims raised for first time on appeal will not be considered absent exceptional circumstances holding that issues raised for first time on appeal generally will not be considered absent exceptional circumstances of plain error or fundamental miscarriage of justice