Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06156/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06156-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Donald Stanton Shealey
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6156

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DONALD STANTON SHEALEY, a/k/a Face, a/k/a Diddy, a/k/a Face 

Diddy, a/k/a The City, a/k/a Donald Santon Shealey,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior

District Judge. (5:08-cr-00282-F-2; 5:12-cv-00538-F)

Submitted: August 25, 2016 Decided: August 29, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Donald Stanton Shealey, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Aubrey West, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Jonathan Philip Holbrook, 

Tobin Webb Lathan, Banumathi Rangarajan, Denise Walker, Seth 

Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, 

North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6156 Doc: 18 Filed: 08/29/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Donald Stanton Shealey seeks to appeal the district court’s 

orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and denying 

his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. 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 

Shealey has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny Shealey’s 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 

Appeal: 16-6156 Doc: 18 Filed: 08/29/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 16-6156 Doc: 18 Filed: 08/29/2016 Pg: 3 of 3