United States v. Stephens , 158 F. App'x 478 ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 05-7201
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    STANLEY STEPHENS,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Florence.   C. Weston Houck, Senior District
    Judge. (CR-99-249; CA-03-281-4-CWH)
    Submitted: December 15, 2005               Decided:   December 21, 2005
    Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Stanley Stephens, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea,
    Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina,
    for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Stanley Stephens, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the
    district court’s orders (1) denying relief on his motion filed
    under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     (2000), and (2) denying his motions to amend
    and 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) (2000).              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) (2000).             A prisoner
    satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists
    would   find     that      the    district       court’s       assessment     of    his
    constitutional      claims       is    debatable       or    wrong    and   that    any
    dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also
    debatable or wrong.            See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 
    537 U.S. 322
    ,
    336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 
    529 U.S. 473
    , 484 (2000); Rose v.
    Lee, 
    252 F.3d 676
    , 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).                   We have independently
    reviewed the record and conclude that Stephens 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 the court and argument would not
    aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    - 2 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-7201

Citation Numbers: 158 F. App'x 478

Filed Date: 12/21/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/31/2014