Court Opinion

ID: 9837977
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-02 21:00:56.258519+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:32:39.447189
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6280      Doc: 6        Filed: 09/01/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6280

        RICHARD L. BABER, JR.,

                            Petitioner - Appellant,

                     v.

        HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections,

                            Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
        Roanoke. Pamela Meade Sargent, Magistrate Judge. (7:22-cv-00134-PMS)

        Submitted: August 29, 2023                                   Decided: September 1, 2023

        Before KING, AGEE, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Bryan Jeffrey Jones, BRYAN J. JONES, ATTORNEY AT LAW, Charlottesville, Virginia,
        for Appellant.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6280         Doc: 6      Filed: 09/01/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Richard L. Baber, Jr., seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’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 Baber 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

               *
                The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
        § 636(c).

                                                     2