United States v. Victor Torrence ( 2023 )

USCA4 Appeal: 19-6012 Doc: 29 Filed: 06/21/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-6012
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
VICTOR DESCOTT TORRENCE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Statesville. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (5:01-cr-00008-FDW-2; 5:16-cv-00118-
FDW)
Submitted: May 30, 2023 Decided: June 21, 2023
Before THACKER and QUATTELBAUM, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joshua B. Carpenter, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA,
INC., Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United
States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 19-6012 Doc: 29 Filed: 06/21/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Victor Descott Torrence 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 Torrence 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