UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 20-6520


DEVON M. BYRD,

                    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
Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., District Judge. (3:19-cv-00434-JAG-RCY)


Submitted: June 16, 2020                                          Decided: June 19, 2020


Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Devon M. Byrd, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Devon M. Byrd seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his

28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2018) petition. See Gonzalez v. Thaler, 

, 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. 

-

41 (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 

, 484 (2000)).

       We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Byrd has not made

the requisite showing.      Accordingly, we deny Byrd’s 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