United States of America v. ANJAY RAVINDRABHAI PATEL, a/k/a Jay, a/k/a Ramesh Raval, a/k/a Anjay Patel

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7121

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ANJAY RAVINDRABHAI PATEL, a/k/a Jay, a/k/a Ramesh Raval, a/k/a Anjay
Patel,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Harrisonburg. Michael F. Urbanski, Chief Judge. (5:11-cr -00031-MFU-RSB-1; 5:19-cv-
81379-MFU-RSB)

Submitted: April 30, 2020 Decided: May 20, 2020

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anjay Ravindrabhai Patel, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

PER CURIAM:
Anjay Ravindrabhai Patel seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing as
untimely his original and amended 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2018) motions. 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) (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 Patel 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