Court Opinion

ID: 9411515
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-26 21:01:15.042409+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:07.465923
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6067      Doc: 11         Filed: 07/25/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-6067

        TAVON OWENS,

                            Petitioner - Appellant,

                     v.

        WARDEN OF WESTERN CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION; MARYLAND
        ATTORNEY GENERAL,

                            Respondents - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
        Lydia Kay Griggsby, District Judge. (1:20-cv-02319-LKG)

        Submitted: June 14, 2023                                          Decided: July 25, 2023

        Before DIAZ, Chief Judge, HEYTENS, Circuit Judge, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Tavon Owens, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6067      Doc: 11          Filed: 07/25/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Tavon Owens 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. See 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 Owens has not made

        the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Owens’

        pending motion, 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