USCA4 Appeal: 24-6868 Doc: 9 Filed: 12/10/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6868

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. EMMANUEL C. NORMAN, a/k/a Marce’ Emmanuel Dalyah, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Elizabeth W. Hanes, District Judge. (4:11-cr-00101-EWH-DEM-1; 4:23- cv-00009-MSD)

Submitted: December 5, 2024 Decided: December 10, 2024

Before GREGORY and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Emmanuel C. Norman, Appellant Pro Se. Julie Podlesni, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6868 Doc: 9 Filed: 12/10/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Emmanuel C. Norman 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- (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 Norman 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