Markese Jones v. Harold Clarke

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: November 29, 2022
• Docket: 22-7012
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7012 Doc: 11 Filed: 11/29/2022 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-7012

MARKESE L. JONES,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, Senior District Judge. (2:21-cv-00311-RAJ-RJK)

Submitted: November 22, 2022 Decided: November 29, 2022

Before HARRIS and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Markese Lamond Jones, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-7012 Doc: 11 Filed: 11/29/2022 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Markese Lamond Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the

recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely Jones’ 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 Jones 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