Court Opinion

ID: 9839364
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-12 21:00:42.579695+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:33.311254
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7176      Doc: 9        Filed: 09/11/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-7176

        MARLO CRUZ,

                            Petitioner - Appellant,

                     v.

        WILLIAM S. BOHRER, Warden,

                            Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
        George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:21-cv-00909-GLR)

        Submitted: September 1, 2023                                Decided: September 11, 2023

        Before KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Marlo Cruz, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7176         Doc: 9        Filed: 09/11/2023    Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Marlo Cruz 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 Cruz 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