Antwon Whitten v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-6540
ANTWON WHITTEN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Norfolk. Lawrence Richard Leonard, Magistrate Judge. (2:20-cv-00570-LRL)
Submitted: December 20, 2022 Decided: December 22, 2022
Before NIEMEYER and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Antwon Whitten, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Antwon Whitten seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’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 Whitten 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
* The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(c).

-- 2 of 2 --