USCA4 Appeal: 16-7765 Doc: 23 Filed: 12/28/2022 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7765

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ZAGALA VON ROGERS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, Senior District Judge. (2:11-cr-00050-RAJ-DEM-1; 2:16- cv-00306-RAJ)

Submitted: December 20, 2022 Decided: December 28, 2022

Before DIAZ, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Frances H. Pratt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Aidan Taft Grano-Mickelsen, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 16-7765 Doc: 23 Filed: 12/28/2022 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Zagala Von Rogers seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying as untimely

his

motion. 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 Rogers has not made

the requisite showing. Although the district court’s timeliness determination is debatable,

we conclude that Rogers’ substantive claim is foreclosed by United States v. Crawley,

(4th Cir. 2021), cert. denied,

(2022). 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