Thomas Kurek v. State of North Carolina

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Thomas Kurek v. State of North Carolina

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6504 Doc: 8 Filed: 11/22/2023 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6504

THOMAS EDWARD KUREK,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:22-hc-02165-D)

Submitted: November 16, 2023 Decided: November 22, 2023

Before AGEE and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas Edward Kurek, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-6504 Doc: 8 Filed: 11/22/2023 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Thomas Edward Kurek seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his

28 U.S.C. § 2254

petition as untimely. 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 Kurek 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Unpublished