Michael Martin v. Harold Clarke ( 2021 )

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7095 Doc: 20 Filed: 12/27/2021 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-7095
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-00854-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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-7095 Doc: 20 Filed: 12/27/2021 Pg: 2 of 2
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