United States v. Jermaine Padgett

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6161 Doc: 38 Filed: 02/28/2025 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 22-6161 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JERMAINE MAURICE PADGETT, a/k/a Maurice,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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-6161 Doc: 38 Filed: 02/28/2025 Pg: 2 of 3 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 USCA4 Appeal: 22-6161 Doc: 38 Filed: 02/28/2025 Pg: 3 of 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