Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-19-07154/USCOURTS-ca4-19-07154-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Hysen Sherifi
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7154

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

HYSEN SHERIFI,

Defendant - Appellant.

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

Wilmington. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (7:12-cr-00020-BR-1; 7:18-cv-00191-

BR)

Submitted: January 28, 2020 Decided: February 19, 2020

Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Hysen Sherifi, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7154 Doc: 9 Filed: 02/19/2020 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Hysen Sherifi seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2018) 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) (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 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 Sherifi has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Sherifi’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

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7154 Doc: 9 Filed: 02/19/2020 Pg: 2 of 2