Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06466/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06466-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Steven Lawrence Hawkins
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6466

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

STEVEN LAWRENCE HAWKINS, a/k/a Hawk,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District 

Judge. (1:11-cr-00048-LMB-1; 1:16-cv-00131-LMB)

Submitted: June 23, 2016 Decided: June 29, 2016

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Steven Lawrence Hawkins, Appellant Pro Se. Philip Samuel Kaplan, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6466 Doc: 7 Filed: 06/29/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Steven Lawrence Hawkins seeks to appeal the district court’s 

orders dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and denying 

his motion for reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rule Civil 

Procedure 59(e). 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

Hawkins 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 

Appeal: 16-6466 Doc: 7 Filed: 06/29/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 16-6466 Doc: 7 Filed: 06/29/2016 Pg: 3 of 3