Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-23-06976/USCOURTS-ca4-23-06976-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tajuan Montre Tate
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6976

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TAJUAN MONTRE TATE

 Defendant - Appellant.

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

Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:19-cr-00382-FDW-DSC-1; 3:23-cv00276-FDW)

Submitted: February 27, 2024 Decided: March 1, 2024

Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tajuan Montre Tate, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6976 Doc: 10 Filed: 03/01/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Tajuan Montre Tate 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 Tate 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: 23-6976 Doc: 10 Filed: 03/01/2024 Pg: 2 of 2