Court Opinion

ID: 9837964
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-02 21:00:29.516271+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:32.768623
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6378      Doc: 6        Filed: 09/01/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6378

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        MARQUITA LEIGH MEREDITH, a/k/a Baby Girl,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Newport News. Rebecca Beach Smith, Senior District Judge. (4:19-cr-00061-RBS-RJK-
        1; 4:23-cv-00012-RBS)

        Submitted: August 29, 2023                                   Decided: September 1, 2023

        Before KING, AGEE, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Marquita Leigh Meredith, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6378         Doc: 6      Filed: 09/01/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Marquita Leigh Meredith seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as

        untimely her 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 Meredith 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