United States v. Stephen Burks , 693 F. App'x 261 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-6540
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
STEPHEN MAURICE BURKS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:13-cr-00144-REP-DJN-1; 3:14-
cv-00861-REP-DJN)
Submitted: July 20, 2017 Decided: July 25, 2017
Before DUNCAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stephen Maurice Burks, Appellant Pro Se. Jessica D. Aber, Assistant United States
Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Stephen Maurice Burks seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on
his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and his motion for reconsideration. The orders are
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 Burks 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
2