DocketNumber: 22-6343
Filed Date: 7/26/2022
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/28/2022
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6343 Doc: 9 Filed: 07/26/2022 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 22-6343 RONALD DENNIS WILLIAMS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. SHANTICIA HAWKINS, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:20-hc-02160-BO) Submitted: July 21, 2022 Decided: July 26, 2022 Before MOTZ, HARRIS, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronald Dennis Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-6343 Doc: 9 Filed: 07/26/2022 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Ronald Dennis Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his28 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 in28 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 Williams 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