United States v. Adrian Anderson ( 2023 )

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6136 Doc: 5 Filed: 06/21/2023 Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-6136
ADRIAN RASHAUN ANDERSON, a/k/a Duke,
Defendant - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:17-cr-00111-BO-2; 5:22-cv-00131-BO)
Submitted: June 15, 2023 Decided: June 21, 2023
Before DIAZ, RICHARDSON, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Adrian Rashaun Anderson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6136 Doc: 5 Filed: 06/21/2023 Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Adrian Rashaun Anderson 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 Anderson 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
∗
The district court found that the 90-day deadline for filing a petition for certiorari
expired on August 25, 2020, and therefore determined that Anderson had until
August 25, 2021, to timely file his § 2255 motion. In fact, Anderson had until
October 25, 2021, to timely file his motion, as the Supreme Court had extended the 90-day
deadline for filing certiorari petitions to 150 days to account for the COVID-19 pandemic.
Nonetheless, because Anderson filed his § 2255 motion five months after the extended
statute of limitations expired, the district court’s dismissal of Anderson’s motion as
untimely is not debatable.
2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6136 Doc: 5 Filed: 06/21/2023 Pg: 3 of 3
are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3