Shonta Helton v. Patricia Yeldell

S
                                    UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Add comment

By

Recent Posts

Recent Comments