Filed: Sep. 26, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6853 HAROLD DEAN KANUPP, Petitioner - Appellant, v. PIEDMONT CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Frank D. Whitney, Chief District Judge. (1:14-cv-00087-FDW) Submitted: September 23, 2014 Decided: September 26, 2014 Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Harol
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6853 HAROLD DEAN KANUPP, Petitioner - Appellant, v. PIEDMONT CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Frank D. Whitney, Chief District Judge. (1:14-cv-00087-FDW) Submitted: September 23, 2014 Decided: September 26, 2014 Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Harold..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6853
HAROLD DEAN KANUPP,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
PIEDMONT CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTE,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Frank D. Whitney,
Chief District Judge. (1:14-cv-00087-FDW)
Submitted: September 23, 2014 Decided: September 26, 2014
Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Harold Dean Kanupp, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge,
III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Harold Dean Kanupp seeks to appeal the district
court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012)
petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice
or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 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) (2012). When the
district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies
this standard by demonstrating “that reasonable jurists would
find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional
claims debatable or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel,
529 U.S. 473,
484 (2000); see also Miller-El v. Cockrell,
537 U.S. 322, 336-38
(2003). When 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.
Slack,
529 U.S. at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Kanupp has not made the requisite showing. The
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 provides a
one-year statute of limitations for § 2254 petitions; save for
exceptions not applicable here, the limitations period runs from
“the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion
2
of direct review or the expiration of the time for seeking such
review.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A) (2012). The limitations
period is tolled during the pendency of a properly filed state
post-conviction action. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2) (2012). The
limitations period following Kanupp’s finalized conviction
expired on December 26, 2007, years before Kanupp filed this
federal habeas petition in April 2014. Thus, the limitations
period was not tolled because Kanupp’s post-conviction actions
were filed approximately eighteen months after the limitations
period expired. See Minter v. Beck,
230 F.3d 663, 665-66 (4th
Cir. 2000) (concluding a § 2254 petition was “clearly time-
barred” when petitioner moved for relief in state court after
the federal one-year limitations period expired). Additionally,
Kanupp neither claims nor demonstrates he is entitled to
equitable tolling, which requires a showing “(1) that he has
been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that some
extraordinary circumstance stood in his way.” Pace v.
DiGuglielmo,
544 U.S. 408, 418 (2005). The record shows no
extraordinary circumstance or reasonable diligence.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability,
deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
3
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
4