Court Opinion

ID: 9943573
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-23 21:00:37.40386+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:47:38.893195
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6653      Doc: 12         Filed: 02/22/2024    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6653

        NOREL STERLING WARD, a/k/a Norell Sterling Ward,

                            Petitioner - Appellant,

                     v.

        DIRECTOR CHADWICK DOTSON,

                            Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:22-cv-00381-LMB-IDD)

        Submitted: February 15, 2024                                 Decided: February 22, 2024

        Before KING, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Norel S. Ward, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6653         Doc: 12       Filed: 02/22/2024     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Norel Sterling Ward 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 Ward 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