Court Opinion

ID: 4580219
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2020-10-23 19:00:42.365927+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:42:25.742275
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 20-6803

DANA SYLVESTER WHITLEY,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

R. GRAHAM, JR., Warden,

                    Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
George Jarrod Hazel, District Judge. (8:18-cv-02188-GJH)

Submitted: October 20, 2020                                   Decided: October 23, 2020

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, DIAZ, Circuit Judge, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dana Sylvester Whitley, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Dana Sylvester Whitley 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

Whitley has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Whitley’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