Court Opinion

ID: 9404382
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-22 21:03:22.765699+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:13.415135
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6136      Doc: 5         Filed: 06/21/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-6136

        ADRIAN RASHAUN ANDERSON, a/k/a Duke,

                             Defendant - Appellant,

                      v.

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:17-cr-00111-BO-2; 5:22-cv-00131-BO)

        Submitted: June 15, 2023                                            Decided: June 21, 2023

        Before DIAZ, RICHARDSON, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Adrian Rashaun Anderson, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6136       Doc: 5         Filed: 06/21/2023      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Adrian Rashaun Anderson 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 Anderson 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

               ∗
                 The district court found that the 90-day deadline for filing a petition for certiorari
        expired on August 25, 2020, and therefore determined that Anderson had until
        August 25, 2021, to timely file his § 2255 motion. In fact, Anderson had until
        October 25, 2021, to timely file his motion, as the Supreme Court had extended the 90-day
        deadline for filing certiorari petitions to 150 days to account for the COVID-19 pandemic.
        Nonetheless, because Anderson filed his § 2255 motion five months after the extended
        statute of limitations expired, the district court’s dismissal of Anderson’s motion as
        untimely is not debatable.

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6136         Doc: 5     Filed: 06/21/2023     Pg: 3 of 3

        are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the

        decisional process.

                                                                                     DISMISSED

                                                    3