Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06831/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06831-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Steven Lamonte Stanley
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6831

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

STEVEN LAMONTE STANLEY, a/k/a Azar, a/k/a Doc,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., 

Senior District Judge. (3:00-cr-00344-HCM-1; 3:14-cv-00396-HCM)

Submitted: November 24, 2015 Decided: December 23, 2015

Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Steven Lamonte Stanley, Appellant Pro Se. David Thomas Maguire, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6831 Doc: 12 Filed: 12/23/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Steven Lamonte Stanley seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order dismissing as untimely 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 

Stanley 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: 15-6831 Doc: 12 Filed: 12/23/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-6831 Doc: 12 Filed: 12/23/2015 Pg: 3 of 3