USCA4 Appeal: 23-6667 Doc: 16 Filed: 02/09/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6667

JASON ROBLES,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN, Wallens Ridge State Prison,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Patricia Tolliver Giles, District Judge. (1:22-cv-00720-PTG-IDD)

Submitted: November 28, 2023 Decided: February 9, 2024

Before RUSHING and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jason Robles, Appellant Pro Se. Katherine Quinlan Adelfio, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-6667 Doc: 16 Filed: 02/09/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Jason Robles seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his

petition. See Gonzalez v. Thaler,

, 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

(d)(1)). The order is

not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.

(c)(1)(A). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”

(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,

-41 (citing Slack v.

McDaniel,

(2000)).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Robles has not made

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny the motion for a certificate of appealability

and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Robles’ motion for appointment of counsel. 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