United States of America v. CASSELL ANTHONY KUOH, a/k/a Tim Borrol

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-6266

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CASSELL ANTHONY KUOH, a/k/a Tim Borrol

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:16-cr-00326-RJC-DCK-1,
3:19-cv-00068-RJC)

Submitted: May 21, 2020 Decided: May 27, 2020

Before AGEE and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Cassell Anthony Kuoh, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

PER CURIAM:
Cassell Anthony Kuoh seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as
untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2018) 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 the 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) (2018). 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) (2018). 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 Kuoh has not made
the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Kuoh’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