Sequoia McKinnon v. Warden Kershaw Correctional Institution

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-6915
SEQUOIA MCKINNON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN KERSHAW CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Columbia. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (8:22-cv-01205-RMG)
Submitted: May 18, 2023 Decided: May 22, 2023
Before NIEMEYER, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sequoia McKinnon, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Sequoia McKinnon seeks to appeal the district court’s orders (1) accepting, in part,
the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely McKinnon’s 28
U.S.C. § 2254 petition; and (2) denying McKinnon’s 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 McKinnon has not
made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny all
pending motions, 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 --