United States v. Kenneth Stuart ( 2022 )

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7376 Doc: 6 Filed: 07/29/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-7376
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KENNETH STUART, a/k/a Bones, a/k/a Maurice Beale, a/k/a Brutal, a/k/a Hooda,
a/k/a Kenneth Steward,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, Senior District Judge. (2:17-cr-00061-RAJ-LRL-1; 2:21-
cv-00226-RAJ
Submitted: May 31, 2022 Decided: July 29, 2022
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and THACKER and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kenneth Stuart, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-7376 Doc: 6 Filed: 07/29/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Kenneth Stuart seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing as untimely
his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) 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 orders are 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 Stuart has not made
the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Stuart’s
motion to unseal, 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
2