Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-20-06949/USCOURTS-ca4-20-06949-1/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UNPUBLISHED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. 20-6949

SHONTA HELTON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

PATRICIA YELDELL, Warden, Leath Correctional Institution,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Orangeburg. Donald C. Coggins, Jr., District Judge. (5:19-cv-02789-DCC)

Submitted: October 28, 2020 Decided: November 9, 2020

Amended: November 10, 2020

Before KEENAN, DIAZ, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Shonta Helton, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 20-6949 Doc: 10 Filed: 11/10/2020 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Shonta Helton seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely Helton’s 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 Helton 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: 20-6949 Doc: 10 Filed: 11/10/2020 Pg: 2 of 2