Court Opinion

ID: 9960733
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-16 21:00:59.888331+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:52.156902
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7134      Doc: 14         Filed: 04/15/2024    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-7134

        CLAUDE OWEN WILSON,

                            Petitioner - Appellant,

                     v.

        RICK WHITE, Warden,

                            Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, Senior District Judge. (3:22-cv-00061-HEH-MRC)

        Submitted: April 11, 2024                                         Decided: April 15, 2024

        Before AGEE and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Claude Owen Wilson, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-7134         Doc: 14      Filed: 04/15/2024     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Claude Owen Wilson 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 Wilson 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