Court Opinion

ID: 9930911
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-07 21:01:04.532846+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:15:51.301066
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6865      Doc: 11         Filed: 02/06/2024     Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-6865

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        ISHMEEL QYSHAWN CHAPMAN,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
        Charlotte. Kenneth D. Bell, District Judge. (3:20-cr-00155-KDB-DCK-1; 3:23-cv-00225-
        KDB)

        Submitted: January 30, 2024                                       Decided: February 6, 2024

        Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Ishmeel Qyshawn Chapman, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6865         Doc: 11       Filed: 02/06/2024     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Ishmeel Qyshawn Chapman seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing as

        untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for

        reconsideration. 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 orders

        are 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 Chapman 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