Court Opinion

ID: 9831305
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:00:25.734866+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:33.682170
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6529      Doc: 14         Filed: 08/31/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-6529

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        RICHARD ARLEE CHAMPION,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
        Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (1:17-cr-00046-MR-WCM-5; 1:21-
        cv-00018-MR)

        Submitted: August 29, 2023                                        Decided: August 31, 2023

        Before KING, AGEE, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Richard Arlee Champion, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6529         Doc: 14      Filed: 08/31/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Richard Arlee Champion seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as

        untimely his amended 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. See 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 Champion 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