Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06707/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06707-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Eli Stafford
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6707

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ELI STAFFORD,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Louise W. Flanagan, 

District Judge. (4:10-cr-00075-FL-1; 4:14-cv-00193-FL)

Submitted: November 22, 2016 Decided: November 29, 2016

Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eli Stafford, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF 

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, John 

Howarth Bennett, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, 

Greenville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6707 Doc: 17 Filed: 11/29/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Eli Stafford seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying 

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, and the order 

denying Stafford’s motions to alter or amend the judgment. 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 

Stafford has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

Appeal: 16-6707 Doc: 17 Filed: 11/29/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

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

 * Stafford obtained authorization from this court to file a 

second or successive § 2255 motion to raise a claim based on 

Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). That 

authorized successive motion is currently pending in the 

district court and is not the subject of this appeal.

Appeal: 16-6707 Doc: 17 Filed: 11/29/2016 Pg: 3 of 3