Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-07460/USCOURTS-ca4-16-07460-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Steven Vernard Parker
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7460

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

STEVEN VERNARD PARKER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:13-cr-00090-RAJ-TEM-1; 2:16-cv00326-RAJ)

Submitted: February 17, 2017 Decided: March 21, 2017

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and DUNCAN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Steven Vernard Parker, Appellant Pro Se. V. Kathleen Dougherty, OFFICE OF THE 

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7460 Doc: 5 Filed: 03/21/2017 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Steven Vernard Parker seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on 

his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) 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 Parker 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 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument 

would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 16-7460 Doc: 5 Filed: 03/21/2017 Pg: 2 of 2