Court Opinion

ID: 7375141
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-28 23:11:16.295657+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:21:06.776687
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7513      Doc: 6        Filed: 01/25/2022     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 21-7513

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        RODRICK EARL MARSHALL,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Newport News. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (4:16-cr-00020-RGD-LRL-1;
        4:21-cv-00126-RGD-LRL)

        Submitted: January 20, 2022                                       Decided: January 25, 2022

        Before WILKINSON, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Rodrick Earl Marshall, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-7513         Doc: 6      Filed: 01/25/2022      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Rodrick Earl Marshall 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. 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 the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this

        standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment

        of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74

        (2017). When 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 Marshall 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