Shonta Helton v. Patricia Yeldell ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 20-6949
    SHONTA HELTON,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    PATRICIA YELDELL, Warden, Leath Correctional Institution,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
    Orangeburg. Donald C. Coggins, Jr., District Judge. (5:19-cv-02789-DCC)
    Submitted: October 28, 2020                           Decided: November 9, 2020
    Amended: November 10, 2020
    Before KEENAN, DIAZ, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Shonta Helton, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Shonta Helton seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the
    recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely Helton’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 Helton 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
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 20-6949

Filed Date: 11/20/2020

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/20/2020