Antwon Whitten v. Harold Clarke

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Antwon Whitten v. Harold Clarke

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6540 Doc: 14 Filed: 12/22/2022 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-6540

ANTWON WHITTEN,

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 Norfolk. Lawrence Richard Leonard, Magistrate Judge. (2:20-cv-00570-LRL)

Submitted: December 20, 2022 Decided: December 22, 2022

Before NIEMEYER and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Antwon Whitten, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-6540 Doc: 14 Filed: 12/22/2022 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Antwon Whitten seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’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 Whitten 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

* The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636

(c).

2

Reference

Status
Unpublished