Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07443/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07443-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Douglas Lee Stallworth
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7443

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

DOUGLAS LEE STALLWORTH,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, District 

Judge. (1:08-cr-00024-JPJ-RSB-36; 1:13-cv-80586-JPJ-RSB)

Submitted: March 29, 2016 Decided: March 31, 2016

Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

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.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7443 Doc: 9 Filed: 03/31/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

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 (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 

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 

Appeal: 15-7443 Doc: 9 Filed: 03/31/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-7443 Doc: 9 Filed: 03/31/2016 Pg: 3 of 3