Court Opinion

ID: 9957250
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-03 21:01:30.11463+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:11.811818
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7082      Doc: 14         Filed: 04/02/2024    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-7082

        MARKELYN LAMONTRE JONES,

                            Petitioner - Appellant,

                     v.

        CHADWICK DOTSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections,

                            Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (2:22-cv-00251-AWA-LRL)

        Submitted: March 28, 2024                                         Decided: April 2, 2024

        Before KING and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Matthew McGavock Robinson, ROBINSON & BRANDT, PSC, Covington, Kentucky, for
        Appellant. Lauren Catherine Campbell, 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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 23-7082         Doc: 14      Filed: 04/02/2024      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Markelyn Lamontre Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the

        recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely Jones’ 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 Jones 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