Court Opinion

ID: 9899901
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-17 21:00:34.633064+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:55.246789
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6705      Doc: 13         Filed: 11/16/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6705

        CHRISTOPHER ALAN BEAN,

                            Petitioner - Appellant,

                     v.

        CHADWICK DOTSON,

                            Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Richmond. Roderick Charles Young, District Judge. (3:22-cv-00601-RCY-MRC)

        Submitted: October 20, 2023                                 Decided: November 16, 2023

        Before GREGORY and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Christopher Alan Bean, Appellant Pro Se. Leah Ann Darron, Assistant Attorney General,
        OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
        Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6705         Doc: 13      Filed: 11/16/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Christopher Alan Bean 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 Bean 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