Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07850/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07850-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dennever Livingston
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7850

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DENNEVER LIVINGSTON, a/k/a Fatta,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

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

Senior District Judge. (2:97-cr-00039-HCM-41)

Submitted: April 16, 2015 Decided: April 20, 2015

Before AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dennever Livingston, Appellant Pro Se. Eric Matthew Hurt, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia; Darryl 

James Mitchell, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, 

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7850 Doc: 12 Filed: 04/20/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Dennever Livingston appeals from the district court’s order 

dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as successive and 

denying his motion to amend his § 2255 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

Livingston 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: 14-7850 Doc: 12 Filed: 04/20/2015 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: 14-7850 Doc: 12 Filed: 04/20/2015 Pg: 3 of 3