United States v. Lafayette Dotson, Jr.
United States v. Lafayette Dotson, Jr.
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-6823
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LAFAYETTE N. DOTSON, JR., a/k/a La La Bubbles,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (1:97-cr-00332-REP-RCY-3; 1:20- cv-00188-REP-RCY)
Submitted: November 23, 2021 Decided: November 30, 2021
Before NIEMEYER, FLOYD, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lafayette N. Dotson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Tony Ray Roberts, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Lafayette N. Dotson, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as
untimely his
28 U.S.C. § 2255motion. 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 Dotson 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
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished