Court Opinion

ID: 9947009
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-01 21:01:06.787423+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:45.201298
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7003      Doc: 8        Filed: 02/29/2024     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-7003

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        ALTON B. COUTHER, III,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, Senior District Judge. (2:12-cr-00187-RAJ-TEM-1; 2:22-
        cv-00134-RAJ)

        Submitted: February 27, 2024                                 Decided: February 29, 2024

        Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Alton Bernard Couther, III, Appellant Pro Se. Kristen Shannon Taylor, OFFICE OF THE
        UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7003         Doc: 8      Filed: 02/29/2024      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Alton Bernard Couther, III, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying

        his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion as time-barred. 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 Couther 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