Court Opinion

ID: 9396879
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-23 21:00:32.141939+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:19.872374
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 19-6069      Doc: 26         Filed: 05/22/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 19-6069

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        HARRY NOLAN MOODY,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
        Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (1:02-cr-00004-MR-4; 1:16-cv-
        00192-MR)

        Submitted: April 18, 2023                                         Decided: May 22, 2023

        Before GREGORY, Chief Circuit Judge, and WILKINSON and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Joshua B. Carpenter, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA,
        INC., Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United
        States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North
        Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 19-6069         Doc: 26       Filed: 05/22/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Harry Nolan Moody seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying 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 Moody 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

               ∗
                 We held this case in abeyance for this court’s decision in United States v.
        Littlejohn, No. 19-6089, which presented the same argument related to the dispositive
        timeliness issue implicated here. See United States v. Littlejohn, No. 19-6089, 2023 WL
        1859911 (4th Cir. Feb. 9, 2023). Upon the issuance of the mandate in Littlejohn, this appeal
        was removed from abeyance and is ripe for disposition.

                                                      2