eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
 2023-06

United States v. Robert Vance ( 2023 )


Menu:
 
  • USCA4 Appeal: 23-6141      Doc: 5        Filed: 06/27/2023     Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-6141
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROBERT DEMONA VANCE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Greenville. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (8:17-cr-00318-BHH-1; 8:21-cv-02610-
BHH)
Submitted: June 22, 2023                                            Decided: June 27, 2023
Before HARRIS and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert Demona Vance, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6141      Doc: 5         Filed: 06/27/2023      Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Robert Demona Vance 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)).
Limiting our review of the record to the issues raised in Vance’s informal brief, we
conclude that Vance has not made the requisite showing. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); see also
Jackson v. Lightsey,
    775 F.3d 170
    , 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important
document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that
brief.”). 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