Court Opinion

ID: 9930906
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-07 21:00:58.637874+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:04:27.706534
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6845      Doc: 6         Filed: 02/06/2024    Pg: 1 of 3

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-6845

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        NESTOR LEON, II, a/k/a Leon Nestor,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
        Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (3:14-cr-00134-MOC-DSC-1; 3:23-cv-
        00349-MOC)

        Submitted: January 30, 2024                                       Decided: February 6, 2024

        Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Nestor Leon, II, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6845      Doc: 6         Filed: 02/06/2024      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Nestor Leon, II, 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, 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 Leon has not made

        the requisite showing. Specifically, while Leon claims on appeal that he is actually

        innocent of the 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) offense of which he was convicted in 2017, reasonable

        jurists could not debate the district court’s rejection of his self-serving assertion that his

        civil rights had been restored and that he was thus unaware of his prohibited status at the

        time of the offense. See Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191, 2195-97, 2200 (2019)

        (holding that § 922(g) offense requires proof that defendant knew of his prohibited status);

        McQuiggin v. Perkins, 569 U.S. 383, 386 (2013) (holding that tenable showing of actual

        innocence may excuse movant’s failure to comply with the limitations period in § 2255(f)).

        Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6845      Doc: 6        Filed: 02/06/2024     Pg: 3 of 3

        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

                                                    3