Court Opinion

ID: 805312
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2012-07-26 19:08:27+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:00:15.348033
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 12-6594

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                      Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

LAMONT D. STEWARD, a/k/a Lamont D. Stewart,

                      Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.     Robert G. Doumar, Senior
District Judge. (2:09-cr-00048-RGD-TEM-1; 2:11-cv-00187-RGD)

Submitted:   July 19, 2012                    Decided:   July 26, 2012

Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lamont D. Steward, Appellant Pro Se. Delnisea Monique Broadnax,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Kevin Michael Comstock,
Assistant United States Attorney, Cameron Rountree, Special
Assistant  United   States  Attorney, Norfolk,   Virginia,  for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

            Lamont D. Steward seeks to appeal the district court’s

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

                                            2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                           DISMISSED

                                3