United States of America v. Christopher Quinn Moses

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-6050
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHRISTOPHER QUINN MOSES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (3:01-cr-00151-MOC-DCK-2; 3:16-cv-
00368-MOC)
Submitted: April 19, 2023 Decided: May 17, 2023
Before DIAZ, HARRIS, and HEYTENS, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Christopher Quinn Moses 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 Moses 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
∗ 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 --