USCA4 Appeal: 23-6469 Doc: 6 Filed: 11/28/2023 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6469

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MUHIDIN SALAD OMAR, a/k/a Muhiyaden Salad, a/k/a Gurdan, a/k/a Gardan, a/k/a Gurden, a/k/a Muhdin, a/k/a Dudan,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Senior District Judge. (2:11-cr-00034-RBS-DEM-9; 2:22-cv-00386-RBS)

Submitted: November 21, 2023 Decided: November 28, 2023

Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Muhidin Salad Omar, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Attias, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 23-6469 Doc: 6 Filed: 11/28/2023 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Muhidin Salad Omar 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.

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

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

(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,

(2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000)).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Omar 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