Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-24-06868/USCOURTS-ca4-24-06868-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Emmanuel C. Norman
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6868

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

EMMANUEL C. NORMAN, a/k/a Marce’ Emmanuel Dalyah,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Newport News. Elizabeth W. Hanes, District Judge. (4:11-cr-00101-EWH-DEM-1; 4:23-

cv-00009-MSD)

Submitted: December 5, 2024 Decided: December 10, 2024

Before GREGORY and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Emmanuel C. Norman, Appellant Pro Se. Julie Podlesni, Assistant United States Attorney, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Newport News, Virginia, for 

Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6868 Doc: 9 Filed: 12/10/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Emmanuel C. Norman seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as 

untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. See Whiteside v. United States, 775 F.3d 180, 182-

83 (4th Cir. 2014) (en banc) (explaining that § 2255 motions are subject to one-year statute 

of limitations, running from latest of four commencement dates enumerated in 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255(f)). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate 

of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). 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 motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. 

Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Norman 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

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6868 Doc: 9 Filed: 12/10/2024 Pg: 2 of 2