Court Opinion

ID: 9785000
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 21:00:50.803152+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:02.657862
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6272      Doc: 6        Filed: 08/29/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6272

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        SAMUEL PRATT, a/k/a Promise,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Columbia. Terry L. Wooten, Senior District Judge. (3:16-cr-00207-TLW-1; 3:21-cv-
        00414-TLW)

        Submitted: August 24, 2023                                        Decided: August 29, 2023

        Before QUATTLEBAUM and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Samuel Pratt, Appellant Pro Se. Elliott Bishop Daniels, Assistant United States Attorney,
        OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for
        Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6272         Doc: 6      Filed: 08/29/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Samuel Pratt 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 Pratt 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