The opinion
USCA4 Appeal: 21-6983 Doc: 8 Filed: 05/22/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-6983
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LOUIS A. BROWN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:11-cr-00057-REP-EWH-1; 3:21-
cv-00051-REP)
Submitted: March 31, 2023 Decided: May 22, 2023
Before WILKINSON, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis A. Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Attias, Assistant United States Attorney,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-6983 Doc: 8 Filed: 05/22/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Louis A. Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing 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 Brown 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
2