Court Opinion

ID: 9397278
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-24 21:01:03.783036+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:22.956679
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6194      Doc: 11         Filed: 05/23/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6194

        STEPHEN RAY CARPENTER,

                            Petitioner - Appellant,

                     v.

        HAROLD W. CLARKE,

                            Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga, Senior District Judge. (1:22-cv-00605-AJT-WEF)

        Submitted: May 18, 2023                                           Decided: May 23, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Stephen Ray Carpenter, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6194         Doc: 11      Filed: 05/23/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Stephen Ray Carpenter 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)).

               Limiting our review of the record to the issues raised in Carpenter’s informal brief

        and pending motion for a certificate of appealability, we conclude that Carpenter has not

        made the requisite showing. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); see also Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d

        170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth

        Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). Accordingly, we

        deny Carpenter’s motions for a certificate of appealability and to appoint counsel 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