Court Opinion

ID: 4642708
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2020-12-14 20:00:20.558424+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:00:34.849122
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 19-7582

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                    Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

LATEEF FISHER,

                    Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:14-cr-00413-RDB; 1:18-cv-03540-RDB)

Submitted: November 24, 2020                                Decided: December 14, 2020

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lateef Fisher, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

       Lateef Fisher 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 Fisher has not made

the requisite showing. * Accordingly, we grant Fisher’s motion to exceed the informal

brief’s length limitations, 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

       *
         Although the procedural ruling itself may be debatable, our review of the record
reveals that Fisher’s § 2255 motion did not state a debatable claim of the denial of a
constitutional right.

                                              2