Court Opinion

ID: 9397291
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-24 21:01:24.896126+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:23.183154
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7590      Doc: 24         Filed: 05/23/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 21-7590

        ERIC G. BANKS, SR.,

                            Petitioner - Appellant,

                     v.

        MARYLAND ATTORNEY GENERAL; WARDEN CHRISTOPHER S. SMITH,

                            Respondents - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
        Richard D. Bennett, Senior District Judge. (1:20-cv-02445-RDB)

        Submitted: February 14, 2023                                      Decided: May 23, 2023

        Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RICHARDSON, Circuit Judge, and KEENAN, Senior
        Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Eric G. Banks, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Andrew John DiMiceli, Assistant Attorney General,
        OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for
        Appellees.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-7590      Doc: 24          Filed: 05/23/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Eric G. Banks, Sr., 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 Banks has not made

        the requisite showing.     Accordingly, we deny Banks’ motions for a certificate of

        appealability and for summary judgment 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