United States v. Demeatric Blow ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 16-7778
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    DEMEATRIC EUGENE BLOW,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
    Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:11-cr-00050-RAJ-DEM-2; 2:16-cv-
    00287-RAJ)
    Submitted: November 18, 2021                                Decided: December 20, 2021
    Before DIAZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Frances H. Pratt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL
    PUBLIC DEFENDER, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Aidan Taft Grano-Mickelsen,
    Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
    Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Demeatric Eugene Blow 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 Blow 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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 16-7778

Filed Date: 12/20/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/20/2021