Opinion
No. 19-7660
03-17-2020
CHARLES EUGENE DUCKETT, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN FRANK BISHOP; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees.
Charles Eugene Duckett, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. George Jarrod Hazel, District Judge. (8:17-cv-02577-GJH) Before KING, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Eugene Duckett, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Charles Eugene Duckett, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2018) 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) (2018)). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2018). 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) (2018). 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 Duckett 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