U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 2023

Benjamin Stith v. R. Younce

Benjamin Stith v. R. Younce
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided December 27, 2023

Benjamin Stith v. R. Younce

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6902 Doc: 8 Filed: 12/27/2023 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6902

BENJAMIN L. STITH, Petitioner - Appellant, v. R. YOUNCE, Warden, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James P. Jones, Senior District Judge. (7:23-cv-00140-JPJ-PMS)

Submitted: December 19, 2023 Decided: December 27, 2023

Before HARRIS, QUATTLEBAUM, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Benjamin L. Stith, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6902 Doc: 8 Filed: 12/27/2023 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Benjamin Stith seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. See Gonzalez v. Thaler, 564 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. See 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 v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Stith 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

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.