Court Opinion

ID: 9406112
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-29 21:01:48.032332+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:26.892618
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7608      Doc: 10         Filed: 06/28/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 21-7608

        MARK EMMANUEL MARTINEZ,

                             Petitioner - Appellant,

                      v.

        ERIK A. HOOKS, Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Public Safety,

                             Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
        Statesville. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (5:19-cv-00117-MR)

        Submitted: May 24, 2023                                           Decided: June 28, 2023

        Before THACKER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Mark Emmanuel Martinez, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-7608         Doc: 10      Filed: 06/28/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Mark Emmanuel Martinez seeks to appeal the district court’s order and judgment

        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 Martinez 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