Fred Jones, Jr. v. Larry Edmonds ( 2022 )

USCA4 Appeal: 20-7633 Doc: 12 Filed: 09/07/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-7633
FRED EUGENE JONES, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
LARRY EDMONDS, Warden, Lunenberg Correctional Center,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Roanoke. Michael F. Urbanski, Chief District Judge. (7:19-cv-00796-MFU-JCH)
Submitted: June 29, 2022 Decided: September 7, 2022
Before NIEMEYER, THACKER, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Abram John Pafford, MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellant.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 20-7633 Doc: 12 Filed: 09/07/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Fred Eugene Jones, Jr., 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 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