United States v. Antonio Stephens ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •                                      UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 19-7401
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    ANTONIO RAY STEPHENS, a/k/a Antonio Ray Stevens,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
    Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:13-cr-00185-D-3; 5:16-cv-00617-D)
    Submitted: December 19, 2019                                Decided: December 23, 2019
    Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Antonio Ray Stephens, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Antonio Ray Stephens seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on 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 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 this court and argument would not aid the
    decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 19-7401

Filed Date: 12/23/2019

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/23/2019