United States v. LaGrant Greer ( 2020 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-7895
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LAGRANT GREER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at
Beckley. Irene C. Berger, District Judge. (5:14-cr-00202-1; 5:18-cv-00387)
Submitted: April 14, 2020 Decided: April 17, 2020
Before WILKINSON, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sebastian Midhun Joy, JOY LAW OFFICE, Catlettsburg, Kentucky, for Appellant.
Timothy Doyle Boggess, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Beckley,
West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
LaGrant Greer seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely Greer’s 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 (2018) 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) (2018). 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) (2018). 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 Greer 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
2