Court Opinion

ID: 9837978
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-02 21:00:57.222976+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:32.679105
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6475      Doc: 9         Filed: 09/01/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-6475

        QUINTIN SINCLAIR WRIGHT,

                             Petitioner - Appellant,

                      v.

        STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,

                             Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
        Charlotte. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (3:21-cv-00163-MR)

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

        Before KING, AGEE, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Quintin Sinclair Wright, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6475      Doc: 9         Filed: 09/01/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Quintin Sinclair Wright 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 Wright has not made

        the requisite showing.      Accordingly, we deny Wright’s motion for 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