Court Opinion

ID: 4681074
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-04-26 20:02:26.847305+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:02:26.818662
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 18-6207

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                    Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

RICARDO RAMERE HILTON,

                    Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Senior District Judge. (7:05-cr-00091-GEC-RSB-1; 7:16-cv-
81015-GEC-RSB)

Submitted: April 22, 2021                                         Decided: April 26, 2021

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, AGEE, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christine Madeleine Lee, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Roanoke,
Virginia, for Appellant. Jennifer R. Bockhorst, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Ricardo Ramere Hilton seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as

untimely his authorized, successive 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 Hilton 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