Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-19-07556/USCOURTS-ca4-19-07556-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commonwealth of Virginia
Appellee
Daryll Keith Shumake
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7556

DARYLL SHUMAKE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,

Respondent - Appellee.

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

Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:18-cv-01170-LMB-MSN)

Submitted: February 10, 2020 Decided: February 20, 2020

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Daryll Keith Shumake, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7556 Doc: 14 Filed: 02/20/2020 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Daryll Keith Shumake 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. See 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 Shumake has not 

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny his 

pending motions, 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: 19-7556 Doc: 14 Filed: 02/20/2020 Pg: 2 of 2