Arkeem Nellon v. Leslie Cooley-Dismukes

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6593 Doc: 14 Filed: 03/17/2026 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-6593

ARKEEM H. NELLON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. LESLIE COOLEY-DISMUKES, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:24-hc-02141-D)

Submitted: March 12, 2026 Decided: March 17, 2026

Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished curiam opinion.

Arkeem H. Nellon, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6593 Doc: 14 Filed: 03/17/2026 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Arkeem H. Nellon seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration. See Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 148 & n.9 (2012) (explaining that § 2254 petitions are subject to one-year statute of limitations, running from latest of four commencement dates enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)). The order denying a § 2254 petition is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). 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 petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez, 565 U.S. at 140-41 (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Nellon has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny all pending motions, 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