United States v. Michael Carter

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6045 Doc: 8 Filed: 12/31/2025 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 25-6045 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MICHAEL KENNY CARTER, a/k/a Blaze, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:17-cr-00351-JFA-1; 3:22- cv-00635-JFA) Submitted: December 23, 2025 Decided: December 31, 2025 Before WILKINSON and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Kenny Carter, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-6045 Doc: 8 Filed: 12/31/2025 Pg: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: Michael Kenny Carter seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his “Motion to Dismiss Indictment” as untimely under Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(3)(A), and alternatively, as a successive and unauthorized 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. We affirm in part and dismiss in part. We agree with the district court that, to the extent that Carter’s motion is filed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3)(A), it is untimely. Accordingly, we affirm this portion of the district court’s order. To the extent that the district court construed Carter’s motion as a successive and unauthorized § 2255 motion, the order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 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 Carter has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal in part. 2 USCA4 Appeal: 25-6045 Doc: 8 Filed: 12/31/2025 Pg: 3 of 3 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 IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART 3