Court Opinion

ID: 9931378
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-08 21:00:50.45699+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:17:32.063279
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6927      Doc: 5         Filed: 02/07/2024    Pg: 1 of 3

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-6927

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        STEVEN WOOTEN, a/k/a Steady,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Greenville. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (4:18-cr-00052-FL-1; 4:22-cv-00073-
        FL)

        Submitted: January 29, 2024                                       Decided: February 7, 2024

        Before NIEMEYER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Steven Wooten, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6927       Doc: 5         Filed: 02/07/2024      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Steven Wooten seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing as untimely his

        28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and dismissing his motion for reconsideration as an unauthorized

        second or successive § 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 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 Wooten has not made

        the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

                                                       2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6927         Doc: 5     Filed: 02/07/2024     Pg: 3 of 3

        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

              *
                 Because Wooten’s motion for reconsideration was properly filed under Fed. R.
        Civ. P. 59(e), the district court erred in dismissing that motion as an unauthorized second
        or successive § 2255 motion. However, the court’s initial determination that Wooten’s
        § 2255 motion was untimely is not debatable. Therefore, the court’s error is harmless.

                                                    3