Court Opinion

ID: 4700560
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-07-01 19:03:28.492279+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:12.364419
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                       No. 20-7875

DANIEL H. COBOS,

                     Petitioner - Appellant,

              v.

ERIK A. HOOKS,

                     Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (1:19-cv-00210-MR)

Submitted: June 29, 2021                                            Decided: July 1, 2021

Before HARRIS, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Daniel H. Cobos, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

       Daniel H. Cobos 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 Cobos has not made

the requisite showing.     Accordingly, we deny Cobos’ motion for 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