Opinion
22-6915
05-22-2023
SEQUOIA MCKINNON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN KERSHAW CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent-Appellee.
Sequoia McKinnon, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: May 18, 2023
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (8:22-cv-01205-RMG)
Sequoia McKinnon, Appellant Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Sequoia McKinnon seeks to appeal the district court's orders (1) accepting, in part, the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely McKinnon's 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition; and (2) denying McKinnon's motion for reconsideration. 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 orders are 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 McKinnon has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny all pending motions, 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