Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06196/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06196-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 15-6196

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

IVAN ALEXANDER COPELAND, a/k/a Bert,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior

District Judge. (2:13-cr-00091-RGD-DEM-1; 2:14-cv-00539-RGD)

Submitted: August 20, 2015 Decided: August 24, 2015

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ivan Alexander Copeland, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin L. Hatch, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6196 Doc: 16 Filed: 08/24/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Ivan Alexander Copeland 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 

Copeland has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny his motion for 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 

Appeal: 15-6196 Doc: 16 Filed: 08/24/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

before this Court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-6196 Doc: 16 Filed: 08/24/2015 Pg: 3 of 3