United States v. Steven Stanley , 627 F. App'x 231 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 15-6831
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    STEVEN LAMONTE STANLEY, a/k/a Azar, a/k/a Doc,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond.     Henry Coke Morgan, Jr.,
    Senior District Judge. (3:00-cr-00344-HCM-1; 3:14-cv-00396-HCM)
    Submitted:   November 24, 2015             Decided:   December 23, 2015
    Before KING and    SHEDD,   Circuit   Judges,   and   HAMILTON,   Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Steven Lamonte Stanley, Appellant Pro Se. David Thomas Maguire,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Steven Lamonte Stanley seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order dismissing as untimely his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     (2012) motion.
    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
    Stanley has not made the requisite showing.                          Accordingly, we
    deny his 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
    2
    before   this   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional
    process.
    DISMISSED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 15-6831

Citation Numbers: 627 F. App'x 231

Judges: King, Shedd, Hamilton

Filed Date: 12/23/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024