Court Opinion

ID: 9893115
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-25 21:00:44.584218+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:00:42.625954
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6558      Doc: 10         Filed: 10/24/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-6558

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        GARVIN ALEXANDER HARRIS,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
        Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:20-cr-00335-RJC-DCK-1; 3:23-cv-
        00260-RJC)

        Submitted: October 19, 2023                                   Decided: October 24, 2023

        Before KING and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Garvin Alexander Harris, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6558         Doc: 10       Filed: 10/24/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Garvin Alexander Harris 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 Harris 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

                                                      2