Court Opinion

ID: 9396891
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-23 21:00:43.251274+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:20.360440
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6915      Doc: 25         Filed: 05/22/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-6915

        SEQUOIA MCKINNON,

                            Petitioner - Appellant,

                     v.

        WARDEN KERSHAW CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

                            Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Columbia. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (8:22-cv-01205-RMG)

        Submitted: May 18, 2023                                           Decided: May 22, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Sequoia McKinnon, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6915      Doc: 25          Filed: 05/22/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Sequoia McKinnon seeks to appeal the district court’s orders (1) accepting, in part,

        the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely McKinnon’s 28

        U.S.C. § 2254 petition; and (2) denying McKinnon’s motion for reconsideration. 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 orders are 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 McKinnon has not

        made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny all

        pending motions, 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