UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21
- 6968

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. SHAHID HASSAN MUSLIM, a/k/a Sharp, a/k/a Sean Williams , Defendant

- Appellant.

No. 21
- 7633

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. SHAHID HASSAN MUSLIM, a/k/a Sharp, a/k/a Sean Williams , Defendant

- Appellant.

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

. Robert J. Conrad , Jr., District Judge. ( 3:21

- cv - 00184

- RJC; 3:13

- cr - 00307

- RJC

- DCK

- 1 )

Submitted : July 29, 2022 Decided: September 30, 2022 USCA4 Appeal: 21-6968 Doc: 18 Filed: 09/30/2022 Pg: 1 of 42 Before RICHARDSON , Circuit Judge , MOTZ and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge s
.
Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Shahid Hassan Muslim, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-6968 Doc: 18 Filed: 09/30/2022 Pg: 2 of 43 PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, Shahid Hassan Muslim seeks to appeal the district court’s order s d enying relief on his motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 225 5.
In No. 21

- 6968, Muslim seek s to appeal the district court’s May 3, 2021 , order finding that Muslim’ s § 2255 motion appears to have been untimely filed and affording him an opportunity to explain why his motion should not be dismissed as untimely. See Hill v. Braxton , 277 F.3d 701, 70 7 (4th Cir. 2002)

. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocut ory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541,
545

- 46 (1949). The order Muslim seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordi ngly, we dismiss appeal No. 21

- 6968 for lack of jurisdiction.
In No. 21

- 7633, M uslim seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 225 5 motion

. See Whiteside v. United States , 775 F.3d 180, 182

- 83 (4th Cir. 2014) (en b anc) (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)). Th is 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 USCA4 Appeal: 21-6968 Doc: 18 Filed: 09/30/2022 Pg: 3 of 44 the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonza lez 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 Muslim has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Muslim’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss appeal No. 21

- 7633

. 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: 21-6968 Doc: 18 Filed: 09/30/2022 Pg: 4 of 4