Daryll Shumake v. Commonwealth of Virginia

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Daryll Shumake v. Commonwealth of Virginia

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7556

DARYLL SHUMAKE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:18-cv-01170-LMB-MSN)

Submitted: February 10, 2020 Decided: February 20, 2020

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Daryll Keith Shumake, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Daryll Keith Shumake seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as

untimely his

28 U.S.C. § 2254

(2018) 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)

(2018)). The order is 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, 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 Shumake has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny his

pending motions, 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

Reference

Status
Unpublished