Zachary Wallace v. Harold Clarke ( 2020 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-6466
ZACHARY DONTE WALLACE, a/k/a Zachary Dante Wallace,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director Virginia Department of Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:19-cv-00350-REP-RCY)
Submitted: September 24, 2020 Decided: September 29, 2020
Before HARRIS and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Zachary Donte Wallace, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Zachary Donte Wallace 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 Wallace has not
made the requisite showing. * Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny
leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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
*
This statute of limitations does not apply to the challenges related to the state
postconviction proceedings that Wallace raised before the district court. However, the
district court properly determined that those alleged errors could not be challenged in a
§ 2254 proceeding. See Lawrence v. Branker, 517 F.3d 700, 717 (4th Cir. 2008).
Therefore, Wallace is not entitled to a certificate of appealability on these challenges. See
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
2