UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6450
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
OUSMANE DIALLO,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema,
District Judge. (1:12-cr-00357-1; 1:14-cv-00077)
Submitted: July 29, 2014 Decided: August 11, 2014
Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ousmane Diallo, Appellant Pro Se. Rebeca Hidalgo Bellows,
Assistant United States Attorney, Justin Edward Fairfax, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ousmane Diallo seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing as untimely his amended 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012)
motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. The order
is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
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) (2012). When the district court denies
relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by
demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the
district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is
debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484
(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).
When 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. Slack, 529 U.S.
at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Diallo has not made the requisite showing. Diallo’s
federal convictions became final on January 28, 2013, upon the
expiration of the fourteen-day period for filing a direct
appeal. See Clay v. United States, 537 U.S. 522, 525 (2003);
2
see also Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i), (b)(6). Absent a
tolling thereof, Diallo had one year, until January 28, 2014, to
file his § 2255 motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(1). However,
Diallo did not execute his amended § 2255 motion until February
24, 2014. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988). And
despite Diallo’s contention to the contrary, the amended motion
did not relate back, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(1)(B), to
the bare bones placeholder § 2255 motion that Diallo filed
within the limitations period. See Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S.
644, 660-64 (2005); United States v. Pittman, 209 F.3d 314, 317-
18 (4th Cir. 2000).
Because the district court’s dispositive timeliness
analysis is not debatable, * we deny Diallo’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
*
We thus decline to consider the propriety of the district
court’s alternative procedural ruling that the amended motion
was an unauthorized, successive § 2255 motion.
3