Opinion
No. 21-6363 No. 21-6364
05-25-2021
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TERESA GALLOP, Defendant - Appellant.
Teresa R. Gallop, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Mark S. Davis, Chief District Judge. (4:16-cr-00088-MSD-LRL-2; 4:19-cv-00085-MSD; 4:16-cr-00086-MSD-LRL-1; 4:19-cv-00084-MSD) Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Teresa R. Gallop, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Teresa Gallop 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 Gallop has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss these consolidated 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