United States of America v. Darius Latron Chaney

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-6037
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DARIUS LATRON CHANEY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (3:03-cr-00040-MOC-1; 3:16-cv-00424-
MOC)
Submitted: April 19, 2023 Decided: June 8, 2023
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joshua B. Carpenter, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA,
INC., Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United
States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Darius Latron Chaney seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying as untimely
his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion.∗ 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 Chaney has not made
the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Chaney’s motion for 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
∗ We held this case in abeyance for this court’s decision in United States v.
Littlejohn, No. 19-6089, which presented the same argument related to the dispositive
timeliness issue implicated here. See United States v. Littlejohn, No. 19-6089, 2023 WL
1859911 (4th Cir. Feb. 9, 2023). Upon the issuance of the mandate in Littlejohn, this appeal
was removed from abeyance and is ripe for disposition.

-- 2 of 2 --