Court Opinion

ID: 4652004
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-01-15 20:00:21.971505+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:01:44.387873
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                       No. 20-6658

HANNA LEE RAYMER,

                     Petitioner - Appellant,

              v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                     Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Statesville. Kenneth D. Bell, District Judge. (5:19-cv-00168-KDB)

Submitted: January 4, 2021                                        Decided: January 15, 2021

Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Hanna Lee Raymer, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Hanna Lee Raymer seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely

her 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 Raymer has not made

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal of the denial of her § 2255 motion. We also reject Raymer’s contention that her

motion warranted relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 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