Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-19-07384/USCOURTS-ca4-19-07384-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Harold W. Clarke
Appellee
Darren M. Rowe
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7384

DARREN M. ROWE,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE,

 Respondent - Appellee.

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

Roanoke. James P. Jones, District Judge. (7:18-cv-00383-JPJ-PMS)

Submitted: February 27, 2020 Decided: March 24, 2020

Before WILKINSON, FLOYD, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Darren M. Rowe, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7384 Doc: 12 Filed: 03/24/2020 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Darren M. Rowe seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely 

his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2018) 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) 

(2018)). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of 

appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2018). 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) (2018). 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 Rowe has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis, 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: 19-7384 Doc: 12 Filed: 03/24/2020 Pg: 2 of 2