Sequoia McKinnon v. Warden Kershaw Correctional Institution, No. 22-6915 (4th Cir. 2023)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 22-6915 SEQUOIA MCKINNON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN KERSHAW CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (8:22-cv-01205-RMG) Submitted: May 18, 2023 Decided: May 22, 2023 Before NIEMEYER, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sequoia McKinnon, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Sequoia McKinnon seeks to appeal the district court’s orders (1) accepting, in part, the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely McKinnon’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition; and (2) denying McKinnon’s motion for reconsideration. 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 orders are 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 McKinnon has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny all pending motions, 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

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.