Opinion
19-6050
05-17-2023
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CHRISTOPHER QUINN MOSES, Defendant-Appellant.
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UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: April 19, 2023
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (3:01-cr-00151-MOC-DCK-2; 3:16-cv-00368-MOC)
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.
Before DIAZ, HARRIS, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM
Christopher Quinn Moses seeks to appeal the district court's order denying as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion.[*] See Whiteside v. United States, 775 F.3d 180, 18283 (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 Moses 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
[*] We held this case in abeyance for this court's decision in United States v. Littlejohn, No. 19-6089, which presented the same argument related to the dispositive timeliness issue implicated here. See United States v. Littlejohn, No. 19-6089, 2023 WL 1859911 (4th Cir. Feb. 9, 2023). Upon the issuance of the mandate in Littlejohn, this appeal was removed from abeyance and is ripe for disposition.