Court Opinion

ID: 9374771
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-23 21:01:00.511515+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:53.097188
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7144      Doc: 12         Filed: 02/22/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-7144

        HARRY A. BARRON,

                             Petitioner - Appellant,

                      v.

        DONALD AMES, Superintendent, Mt. Olive, WV,

                             Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at
        Bluefield. David A. Faber, Senior District Judge. (1:20-cv-00498)

        Submitted: February 16, 2023                                 Decided: February 22, 2023

        Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RUSHING, Circuit Judge, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Harry A. Barron, Appellant Pro Se. Lindsay Sara See, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
        GENERAL, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7144         Doc: 12      Filed: 02/22/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Harry A. Barron seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the

        recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely Barron’s 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 Barron 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