United States v. Jarvis Pate

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 21-6166 Doc: 10 Filed: 07/07/2023 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-6166

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JARVIS LAMONT PATE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:17-cr-00056-CCE-1; 1:20-cv-00639- CCE-LPA)

Submitted: August 9, 2022 Decided: July 7, 2023

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and THACKER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jarvis Lamont Pate, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-6166 Doc: 10 Filed: 07/07/2023 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Jarvis Lamont Pate 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 Pate has not made

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Pate’s motion for 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