UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-7513

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RODRICK EARL MARSHALL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (4:16-cr-00020-RGD-LRL-1; 4:21-cv-00126-RGD-LRL)

Submitted: January 20, 2022 Decided: January 25, 2022

Before WILKINSON, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rodrick Earl Marshall, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Rodrick Earl Marshall seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as

untimely his

motion. See Whiteside v. United States,

, 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

(f)). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate

of appealability. See

(c)(1)(B). A certificate of appealability will not

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”

(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment

of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis,

(2017). When 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,

(2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000)).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Marshall 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