United States v. Joseph Vassey
United States v. Joseph Vassey
Opinion
USCA4 Appeal: 24-6735 Doc: 11 Filed: 01/13/2025 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-6735
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOSEPH MICHAEL VASSEY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, Senior District Judge. (3:20-cr-00131-FDW-DCK-4; 3:24- cv-00365-FDW)
Submitted: October 28, 2024 Decided: January 13, 2025
Before WILKINSON, RUSHING, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joseph Michael Vassey, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-6735 Doc: 11 Filed: 01/13/2025 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Joseph Michael Vassey 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 Vassey 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- Unpublished