Ryan Williams v. Carlos Bivens

USCA4 Appeal: 24-7174 Doc: 11 Filed: 03/14/2025 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24-7174 RYAN W. WILLIAMS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN CARLOS D. BIVENS, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. George L. Russell, III, Chief District Judge. (1:23-cv-01182-GLR) Submitted: March 11, 2025 Decided: March 14, 2025 Before NIEMEYER, RICHARDSON, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ryan W. Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-7174 Doc: 11 Filed: 03/14/2025 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Ryan W. Williams 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 Williams has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny his motion to correct and transfer the record, 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