Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07771/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07771-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lionel Staine
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-7771

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

LIONEL STAINE, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, 

Senior District Judge. (4:02-cr-00060-H-1; 4:08-cv-00085-H) 

Submitted: January 13, 2010 Decided: January 27, 2010 

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Lionel Staine, Appellant Pro Se. Kimberly Ann Moore, OFFICE OF 

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

Appeal: 09-7771 Doc: 12 Filed: 01/27/2010 Pg: 1 of 2
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Lionel Staine seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009) 

motion. The court denied Staine’s motion on the merits and 

because it was untimely. The order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). A 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the 

constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or 

wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district 

court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 

322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); 

Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have 

independently reviewed the record and conclude Staine has not 

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate 

of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Staine’s 

motion for appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before the court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED

Appeal: 09-7771 Doc: 12 Filed: 01/27/2010 Pg: 2 of 2