Brian Best v. David Greene
Brian Best v. David Greene
Opinion
USCA4 Appeal: 23-7023 Doc: 10 Filed: 02/06/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-7023
BRIAN KEITH BEST,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
DAVID GREENE, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Ellen Lipton Hollander, Senior District Judge. (1:23-cv-00918-ELH)
Submitted: January 30, 2024 Decided: February 6, 2024
Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Brian Keith Best, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew John DiMiceli, Assistant Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-7023 Doc: 10 Filed: 02/06/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Brian Keith Best seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his
28 U.S.C. § 2254petition 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 Best 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- Unpublished