United States v. John Conner ( 2021 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-6266
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOHN HENRY CONNER, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 21-6267
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOHN HENRY CONNER, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Senior District Judge. (7:10-cr-00040-GEC-1; 7:20-cv-81458-
GEC-PMS; 7:11-cr-00036-GEC-1; 7:20-cv-81459-GEC-PMS)
Submitted: August 24, 2021 Decided: August 27, 2021
Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John Henry Conner, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Kari Kristina Munro, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, John Henry Conner, Jr., 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 Conner has not made
the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
appeals. 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
3