Hanna Raymer v. United States ( 2021 )

UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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