Court Opinion

ID: 9919655
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-18 21:01:13.575767+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:12:17.681914
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6872      Doc: 10         Filed: 01/17/2024     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-6872

        JEFFREY A. HAZLETT,

                             Petitioner - Appellant,

                      v.

        SHELBY SEARLS, Superintendent,

                             Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
        Clarksburg. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (1:21-cv-00072-JPB-JPM)

        Submitted: December 27, 2023                                      Decided: January 17, 2024

        Before WILKINSON and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Jeffrey A. Hazlett, Appellant Pro Se. Lindsay Sara See, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
        GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6872         Doc: 10       Filed: 01/17/2024     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Jeffrey A. Hazlett 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 Hazlett 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