Michael Martin v. Harold Clarke ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 21-7100
    MICHAEL L. MARTIN,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    HAROLD CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
    Roanoke. James P. Jones, Senior District Judge. (7:19-cv-00853-JPJ-PMS)
    Submitted: December 21, 2021                                Decided: December 27, 2021
    Before KING and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
    Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Michael L. Martin, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Michael L. Martin seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing as untimely
    his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     petition and denying his 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 Martin 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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 7100-21

Filed Date: 12/27/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/28/2021