UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7582

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LATEEF FISHER, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.

Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:14-cr-00413-RDB; 1:18-cv-03540-RDB)

Submitted: November 24, 2020 Decided: December 14, 2020

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lateef Fisher, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Lateef Fisher 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 Fisher has not made the requisite showing. * Accordingly, we grant Fisher’s motion to exceed the informal brief’s length limitations, 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

* Although the procedural ruling itself may be debatable, our review of the record reveals that Fisher’s § 2255 motion did not state a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right.