Legal Research AI

Steven Powers v. Erik Hooks

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Date filed: 2021-07-02
Citations:
Copy Citations
Click to Find Citing Cases

                                    UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                       No. 21-6138


STEVEN WAYNE POWERS,

                     Petitioner - Appellant,

              v.

ERIK A. HOOKS, Secretary of Department of Public Safety,

                     Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Statesville. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (5:19-cv-00098-MR)


Submitted: June 29, 2021                                            Decided: July 2, 2021


Before HARRIS, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Steven Wayne Powers, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

       Steven Wayne Powers 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 Powers 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