Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-19-07190/USCOURTS-ca4-19-07190-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7190

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ALFREDA STALLION,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Senior District Judge. (2:14-cr-00137-RBS-RJK-9; 2:18-

cv-00468-RBS)

Submitted: January 23, 2020 Decided: January 28, 2020 

Before WYNN, DIAZ, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alfreda Stallion, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7190 Doc: 9 Filed: 01/28/2020 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Alfreda Stallion seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on her 28 

U.S.C. § 2255 (2018) 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) (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 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 Stallion 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

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7190 Doc: 9 Filed: 01/28/2020 Pg: 2 of 2