Court Opinion

ID: 4671121
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-03-24 20:00:49.973631+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:21.229946
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 17-7143

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                    Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

GLENN XAVIER WHARTON,

                    Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Lynchburg. Norman K. Moon, Senior District Judge. (6:03-cr-70164-NKM-RSB-1; 6:16-
cv-81092-NKM-RSB)

Submitted: March 12, 2021                                         Decided: March 24, 2021

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

       Glenn Xavier Wharton seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying 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 Wharton 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