Court Opinion

ID: 9939612
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-10 21:00:27.59635+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:41:31.922022
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6667      Doc: 16         Filed: 02/09/2024    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6667

        JASON ROBLES,

                            Petitioner - Appellant,

                     v.

        WARDEN, Wallens Ridge State Prison,

                            Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Alexandria. Patricia Tolliver Giles, District Judge. (1:22-cv-00720-PTG-IDD)

        Submitted: November 28, 2023                                      Decided: February 9, 2024

        Before RUSHING and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Jason Robles, Appellant Pro Se. Katherine Quinlan Adelfio, OFFICE OF THE
        ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6667      Doc: 16          Filed: 02/09/2024     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Jason Robles 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 Robles has not made

        the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny the motion for a certificate of appealability

        and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Robles’ motion for appointment of counsel. 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