Court Opinion

ID: 9404373
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-22 21:03:14.926956+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:13.582285
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 19-6012      Doc: 29         Filed: 06/21/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 19-6012

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        VICTOR DESCOTT TORRENCE,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
        Statesville. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (5:01-cr-00008-FDW-2; 5:16-cv-00118-
        FDW)

        Submitted: May 30, 2023                                           Decided: June 21, 2023

        Before THACKER and QUATTELBAUM, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Joshua B. Carpenter, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA,
        INC., Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United
        States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North
        Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 19-6012         Doc: 29      Filed: 06/21/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Victor Descott Torrence 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 Torrence 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