Jimmy Allen Roberts v. ERIK A. HOOKS, Secretary of NCDPS, substituted for Barney Owens

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-1868
JIMMY ALLEN ROBERTS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
ERIK A. HOOKS, Secretary of NCDPS, substituted for Barney Owens,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (1:21-cv-00058-MR)
Submitted: January 17, 2023 Decided: January 19, 2023
Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jimmy Allen Roberts, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Jimmy Allen Roberts, a North Carolina inmate, 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. 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 Roberts has not made
the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Roberts’ motion for 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 --