                                    UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 19-7660


CHARLES EUGENE DUCKETT, JR.,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

WARDEN FRANK BISHOP; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF
MARYLAND,

                    Respondents - Appellees.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
George Jarrod Hazel, District Judge. (8:17-cv-02577-GJH)


Submitted: March 12, 2020                                         Decided: March 17, 2020


Before KING, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Charles Eugene Duckett, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Charles Eugene Duckett, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as

untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2018) 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)

(2018)). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of

appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2018). 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) (2018). 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 Duckett 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
