Court Opinion

ID: 9908565
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-09 21:00:27.214207+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:16.292339
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6418      Doc: 7         Filed: 12/08/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-6418

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        TERENCE HOWARD ROACH, a/k/a Terrance Howard Roach,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
        Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (2:06-cr-00004-MR-WCM-1;
        1:23-cv-00033-MR)

        Submitted: November 17, 2023                                  Decided: December 8, 2023

        Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Terence Howard Roach, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6418         Doc: 7       Filed: 12/08/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Terence Howard Roach seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28

        U.S.C. § 2255 motion as untimely. 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, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (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 Roach 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