Mustafa Salaam v. John Walrath ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 19-7746
    MUSTAFA SALAAM,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    JOHN F. WALRATH,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
    Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:19-cv-01350-LMB-JFA)
    Submitted: April 14, 2020                                         Decided: April 17, 2020
    Before WILKINSON, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Mustafa Salaam, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Mustafa Salaam 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 Salaam has not made
    the requisite showing.     Accordingly, we deny Salaam’s motion for a certificate of
    appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 19-7746

Filed Date: 4/17/2020

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2020