Jerard Steven Davis v. North Carolina Attorney General

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-6274
JERARD STEVEN DAVIS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
NORTH CAROLINA ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:20-hc-02177-D)
Submitted: August 23, 2022 Decided: November 4, 2022
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, HEYTENS, Circuit Judge, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Karen Oakley, LAW OFFICE OF KAREN OAKLEY, LLC, Cincinnati, Ohio, for
Appellant.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Jerard Steven Davis seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his
28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as untimely and, alternatively, unexhausted. See Shinn v.
Ramirez, 142 S. Ct. 1718, 1731-32 (2022) (discussing exhaustion requirement); 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 Davis 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 of 2 --