Jamal Gethers v. Harold Clarke ( 2020 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-7523
JAMAL NATHAN GETHERS,
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
Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:19-cv-00538-LMB-JFA)
Submitted: March 31, 2020 Decided: May 15, 2020
Before MOTZ, AGEE, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jamal Nathan Gethers, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jamal Nathan Gethers seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing his 28
U.S.C. § 2254 (2018) petition as untimely and denying reconsideration. The orders are
not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2018). 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) (2018).
When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by
demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the
constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773–74
(2017). But when 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 v. Thaler, 565
U.S. 134, 140–41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).
The district court found Gethers’s petition to be time barred. And Gethers’s
informal brief fails to show that this dispositive procedural ruling is debatable.
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
2