Miguel Urena v. Shane Jackson

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6229 Doc: 13 Filed: 01/29/2026 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-6229

MIGUEL URENA, Petitioner - Appellant, v. SHANE JACKSON, Warden Lee Correctional Institution, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Joseph Dawson, III, District Judge. (5:23-cv-05202-JD)

Submitted: January 22, 2026 Decided: January 29, 2026

Before AGEE, RICHARDSON, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Miguel Urena, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6229 Doc: 13 Filed: 01/29/2026 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Miguel Urena seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely Urena’s 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 Urena 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