United States of America v. Michael Kenny Carter, a/k/a Blaze

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-6045
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL KENNY CARTER, a/k/a Blaze,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:17-cr-00351-JFA-1; 3:22-
cv-00635-JFA)
Submitted: December 23, 2025 Decided: December 31, 2025
Before WILKINSON and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Kenny Carter, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Michael Kenny Carter seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his
“Motion to Dismiss Indictment” as untimely under Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(3)(A), and
alternatively, as a successive and unauthorized 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. We affirm in
part and dismiss in part.
We agree with the district court that, to the extent that Carter’s motion is filed
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3)(A), it is untimely. Accordingly, we affirm this portion of the
district court’s order.
To the extent that the district court construed Carter’s motion as a successive and
unauthorized § 2255 motion, the order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
issues a certificate of appealability. See 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 Carter has not
made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and
dismiss the appeal in part.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
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.
AFFIRMED IN PART,
DISMISSED IN PART

-- 3 of 3 --