Court Opinion

ID: 5140930
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-12-28 05:01:25.74616+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:19.670672
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                       No. 21-7095

MICHAEL L. MARTIN,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

HAROLD 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. James P. Jones, Senior District Judge. (7:19-cv-00854-JPJ-PMS)

Submitted: December 21, 2021                                Decided: December 27, 2021

Before KING and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael L. Martin, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

       Michael L. Martin seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing as untimely

his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition and denying his motion for reconsideration. 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 orders are 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 Martin 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

                                              2