Taurean Edwards v. Harold Clarke

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Taurean Edwards v. Harold Clarke

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7475 Doc: 9 Filed: 10/20/2022 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-7475

TAUREAN JERRELL EDWARDS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD CLARKE,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:21-cv-00035-JAG-EWH)

Submitted: October 18, 2022 Decided: October 20, 2022

Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Taurean Jerrell Edwards, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-7475 Doc: 9 Filed: 10/20/2022 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Taurean Jerrell Edwards 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 Edwards 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

Reference

Status
Unpublished