United States v. Alton Couther, III

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7003 Doc: 8 Filed: 02/29/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-7003

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ALTON B. COUTHER, III,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, Senior District Judge. (2:12-cr-00187-RAJ-TEM-1; 2:22- cv-00134-RAJ)

Submitted: February 27, 2024 Decided: February 29, 2024

Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alton Bernard Couther, III, Appellant Pro Se. Kristen Shannon Taylor, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-7003 Doc: 8 Filed: 02/29/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Alton Bernard Couther, III, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying

his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion as time-barred. 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 Couther 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