Cleveland Coaxum, Jr. v. Jeffrey Snoddy

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Cleveland Coaxum, Jr. v. Jeffrey Snoddy

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6409 Doc: 13 Filed: 11/22/2022 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-6409

CLEVELAND LEROY COAXUM, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

JEFFREY SNODDY, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James P. Jones, Senior District Judge. (7:21-cv-00305-JPJ-PMS)

Submitted: November 17, 2022 Decided: November 22, 2022

Before KING, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Cleveland Leroy Coaxum, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-6409 Doc: 13 Filed: 11/22/2022 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Cleveland Leroy Coaxum, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing

as untimely his amended

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 Coaxum 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Unpublished