Danny Foreman appeals the district court’s order denying his 28 U .S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2001) petition as untimely filed. We have reviewed the record, the district court’s opinion, and Foreman’s informal appellate brief. Because Foreman failed to challenge on appeal the basis for the district court’s ruling, he has not preserved any issue for our review. 4th Cir. R. 34(b). In any event, it is clear that the district court’s conclusion that Foreman’s § 2254 petition was untimely is correct. Further, we decline to review the claims Foreman raised for the first time on appeal. See Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appeala-bility and dismiss the appeal. 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.