Floyd Hunt, Jr. v. Rick White ( 2023 )

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7342 Doc: 14 Filed: 05/23/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-7342
FLOYD O. HUNT, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
RICK WHITE,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Roanoke. James P. Jones, Senior District Judge. (7:21-cv-00534-JPJ-PMS)
Submitted: May 18, 2023 Decided: May 23, 2023
Before NIEMEYER, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Floyd O. Hunt, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7342 Doc: 14 Filed: 05/23/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Floyd O. Hunt, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing as untimely
his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition and denying his 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 Hunt has not made
the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Hunt’s motion for an evidentiary hearing,
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