From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Wharton

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Mar 24, 2021
No. 17-7143 (4th Cir. Mar. 24, 2021)

Opinion

No. 17-7143

03-24-2021

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. GLENN XAVIER WHARTON, Defendant - Appellant.

Christine Madeleine Lee, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. Jennifer R. Bockhorst, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.


UNPUBLISHED

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Lynchburg. Norman K. Moon, Senior District Judge. (6:03-cr-70164-NKM-RSB-1; 6:16-cv-81092-NKM-RSB) Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christine Madeleine Lee, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. Jennifer R. Bockhorst, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Glenn Xavier Wharton 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, 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 Wharton 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


Summaries of

United States v. Wharton

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Mar 24, 2021
No. 17-7143 (4th Cir. Mar. 24, 2021)
Case details for

United States v. Wharton

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. GLENN XAVIER WHARTON…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Mar 24, 2021

Citations

No. 17-7143 (4th Cir. Mar. 24, 2021)