Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-07226/USCOURTS-ca4-16-07226-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Steven Christopher Harvey
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7226

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

STEVEN CHRISTOPHER HARVEY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Newport News. Mark S. Davis, District 

Judge. (4:10-cr-00132-MSD-DEM-1; 4:16-cv-00122-MSD)

Submitted: October 14, 2016 Decided: November 3, 2016

Before TRAXLER, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Steven Christopher Harvey, Appellant Pro Se. Dee Mullarkey 

Sterling, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia; 

Megan Cowles, Kristine Elizabeth Wolfe, OFFICE OF THE UNITED 

STATES ATTORNEY, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7226 Doc: 9 Filed: 11/03/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Steven Christopher Harvey seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order dismissing as successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 

(2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit 

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 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 

Harvey 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

Appeal: 16-7226 Doc: 9 Filed: 11/03/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED

Appeal: 16-7226 Doc: 9 Filed: 11/03/2016 Pg: 3 of 3