Court Opinion

ID: 9407755
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-08 21:00:29.596955+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:39.998315
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-6166      Doc: 10         Filed: 07/07/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                                No. 21-6166

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        JARVIS LAMONT PATE,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
        Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:17-cr-00056-CCE-1; 1:20-cv-00639-
        CCE-LPA)

        Submitted: August 9, 2022                                            Decided: July 7, 2023

        Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and THACKER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Jarvis Lamont Pate, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-6166      Doc: 10          Filed: 07/07/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Jarvis Lamont Pate 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 Pate has not made

        the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Pate’s motion for 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