Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-24-06910/USCOURTS-ca4-24-06910-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6910

MARK HAYES,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

CHADWICK DOTSON,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:24-cv-00273-LMB-IDD)

Submitted: December 5, 2024 Decided: December 10, 2024

Before GREGORY and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark Hayes, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6910 Doc: 11 Filed: 12/10/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Mark Hayes seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 

U.S.C. § 2254 petition. See Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 148 & n.9 (2012) 

(explaining that § 2254 petitions are subject to one-year statute of limitations, running from 

latest of four commencement dates enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)). The order is 

not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial 

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When, as here,

the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both 

that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez, 565 U.S. at 140-41 (citing Slack v. 

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hayes has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the 

appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

DISMISSED

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6910 Doc: 11 Filed: 12/10/2024 Pg: 2 of 2