Court Opinion

ID: 9947143
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-02 21:00:42.583516+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:54.794749
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6859      Doc: 5        Filed: 03/01/2024     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-6859

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        KENNETH STUART, a/k/a Bones, a/k/a Maurice Beale, a/k/a Brutal, a/k/a Hooda,
        a/k/a Kenneth Steward,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, Senior District Judge. (2:17-cr-00061-RAJ-LRL-1; 2:23-
        cv-00051-RAJ)

        Submitted: February 27, 2024                                        Decided: March 1, 2024

        Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Kenneth Stuart, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6859         Doc: 5       Filed: 03/01/2024      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Kenneth Stuart seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing his 28 U.S.C.

        § 2255 motion as successive and unauthorized and denying various pro se motions related

        to his postconviction proceedings. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or

        judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). 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, as here, 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.

        Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

        484 (2000)).

               We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Stuart 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

                                                      2