United States v. Stanley Winston ( 2020 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-7742
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
STANLEY RAY WINSTON, a/k/a Stanley Wilson, a/k/a Rashaad Winston,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:13-cr-00048-CMH-2; 1:16-cv-
00706-CMH)
Submitted: April 24, 2020 Decided: May 7, 2020
Before AGEE, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stanley Ray Winston, Appellant Pro Se. Rebeca Hidalgo Bellows, Assistant United States
Attorney, Patricia T. Giles, Assistant United States Attorney, Aidan Taft Grano, Assistant
United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Stanley Ray Winston seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his
28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2018) 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) (2018). 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) (2018). When the district court denies relief
on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists
could find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.
See Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (2017). 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. 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 Winston 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