Court Opinion

ID: 9388554
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-20 21:00:59.2569+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:21.026054
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6202      Doc: 11         Filed: 04/19/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-6202

        RHASAAN HARCUM,

                            Petitioner - Appellant,

                     v.

        WARDEN WEST,

                            Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
        Lydia Kay Griggsby, District Judge. (1:21-cv-00445-LKG)

        Submitted: January 30, 2023                                       Decided: April 19, 2023

        Before DIAZ and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Rhasaan Harcum, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew John DiMiceli, Assistant Attorney General,
        OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for
        Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6202         Doc: 11       Filed: 04/19/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Rhasaan Harcum 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 Harcum 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

                                                      2