Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tony Glenn AVANT, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-04-23
Citations: 519 F. App'x 159
Docket Number: No. 13-6113
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tony Glenn AVANT, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 519
Pages: 159–160

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tony Glenn AVANT, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-6113.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 18, 2013.
Decided: April 23, 2013.
Tony Glenn Avant, Appellant Pro Se. John Samuel Bowler, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Tony Glenn Avant seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate of ap-pealability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2258(c)(2) (2006). When 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. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595,146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Avant 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.