Case ID: f-appx_642/html/0279-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Douglas Lee STALLWORTH, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-7443.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: March 29, 2016.
    Decided: March 31, 2016.
    Douglas Lee Stallworth, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. Bockhorst, Zachary T. Lee, Assistant United States Attorneys, Mary Kathleen Carnell, Office of the United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Douglas Lee Stallworth seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and denying reconsideration. The orders are 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Stallworth has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Stallworth’s motions for a certificate of appealability, for’ release, and to strike this court’s scheduling order, 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.