United States of America v. Jermaine Maurice Padgett, a/k/a Maurice

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-6161
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JERMAINE MAURICE PADGETT, a/k/a Maurice,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (3:93-cr-00215-GCM-4; 3:21-cv-
00463-GCM)
Submitted: February 14, 2025 Decided: February 28, 2025
Before WILKINSON, KING, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Jeremy Gordon, JEREMY GORDON, PLLC, Mansfield, Texas, for
Appellant. Dena J. King, United States Attorney, Elizabeth M. Greenough, Assistant
United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Jermaine Maurice Padgett appeals the district court’s order denying and dismissing
his authorized, successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion challenging his 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)
conviction on Count 33 based on United States v. Davis, 588 U.S. 445 (2019). The district
court found that Padgett’s motion was not timely filed and dismissed it on that basis. On
appeal, we concluded that Padgett made the requisite showing that reasonable jurists would
find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling and that
reasonable jurists would find it debatable whether his § 2255 motion stated a valid claim
of the denial of a constitutional right. See Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012)
(stating standard). We therefore granted a certificate of appealability (COA).
After the parties briefed the specific procedural issues indicated in the COA order,
we placed this appeal in abeyance for United States v. Kinard, 93 F.4th 213 (4th Cir. 2024);
and after our decision in Kinard, the Government filed a Fed. R. App. P. 28(j) letter asking
us to affirm the district court’s dismissal of Padgett’s motion, because it fails on the merits
under Kinard. Padgett has not responded to the Government’s letter; and upon our review,
we agree with the Government. In Kinard, we affirmed the district court’s denial on the
merits of Padgett’s co-defendant’s § 2255 motion making the same challenge to his Count
33 conviction; and we held that the predicate offense “was a ‘crime of violence’ under the
force clause of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A).” Kinard, 93 F.4th at 216. We conclude that even
if the district court erred in its procedural ruling, Padgett cannot succeed on the merits.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 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

-- 3 of 3 --