The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
22-6067•Tavon Owens v. Warden of Western Correctional Institution; Maryland Attorney General
22-6067Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitJul 25, 2023
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-6067
TAVON OWENS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN OF WESTERN CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION; MARYLAND
ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Lydia Kay Griggsby, District Judge. (1:20-cv-02319-LKG)
Submitted: June 14, 2023 Decided: July 25, 2023
Before DIAZ, Chief Judge, HEYTENS, Circuit Judge, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Tavon Owens, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Tavon Owens seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his
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. See 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 Owens has not made
the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Owens’
pending motion, 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 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.