United States v. Saundra White

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6119 Doc: 10 Filed: 12/22/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-6119
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SAUNDRA LUCILLE WHITE, a/k/a Lucille Parrish-White, a/k/a L. Saundra White,
a/k/a L. Saundra Parrish White, a/k/a Lucille S. White, a/k/a Lucille P. White, a/k/a
Lucille Parrish, a/k/a Saundra L. Parrish,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Paul W. Grimm, District Judge. (8:13-cr-00436-PWG-1; 8:20-cv-02364-PWG)
Submitted: December 20, 2022 Decided: December 22, 2022
Before NIEMEYER and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Saundra Lucille White, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth G. Wright, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6119 Doc: 10 Filed: 12/22/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Saundra Lucille White seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing as
untimely her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and denying her motion for reconsideration. 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 orders are 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 White 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