Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-17-06002/USCOURTS-ca4-17-06002-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Montra L. Owen
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6002

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MONTRA L. OWEN,

Defendant - Appellant.

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

Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:03-cr-00197-RAJ-1; 2:16-cv-00330-

RAJ)

Submitted: February 18, 2020 Decided: February 20, 2020

Before MOTZ, HARRIS, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Montra L. Owen, Appellant Pro Se. Daniel Taylor Young, Assistant United States 

Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for 

Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 17-6002 Doc: 29 Filed: 02/20/2020 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Montra L. Owen 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 Owen 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: 17-6002 Doc: 29 Filed: 02/20/2020 Pg: 2 of 2