Leroy Stuart v. United States ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •                                      UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 19-7712
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    LEROY ANGLOSON STUART, a/k/a John,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
    Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (5:92-cr-00114-BR-3; 5:16-cv-00593-BR)
    Submitted: September 24, 2020                               Decided: September 28, 2020
    Before HARRIS and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
    Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Leroy Angloson Stuart, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Leroy Angloson Stuart seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on
    his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     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). 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). 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 Stuart 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: 19-7712

Filed Date: 9/28/2020

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 9/28/2020