United States v. Gary Revis ( 2022 )

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7106 Doc: 10 Filed: 08/19/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-7106
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
GARY EUGENE REVIS, a/k/a G,
Defendant - Appellant.
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)
Submitted: July 29, 2022 Decided: August 19, 2022
Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gary Eugene Revis, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-7106 Doc: 10 Filed: 08/19/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
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
2