Opinion
21-7106
08-19-2022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GARY EUGENE REVIS, a/k/a G, Defendant-Appellant.
Gary Eugene Revis, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: July 29, 2022
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, Chief District Judge. (2:18-cr-00140-MSD-LRL-4; 2:20-cv-00470-MSD-LRL)
Gary Eugene Revis, Appellant Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM.
Gary Eugene Revis 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 Revis has not made the requisite showing, particularly in light of Revis' several-month delay in filing his second § 2255 motion, which contained the same claims as his first, voluntarily dismissed motion. 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.