Court Opinion

ID: 4392241
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-04-30 19:00:17.659967+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:40.669443
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 18-6881

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                    Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

ROBERT HENRY STEWART, JR., a/k/a Robert Abney, a/k/a Champ Stewart,
a/k/a Chief Robert Stewart,

                    Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken.
Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge.                    (1:96-cr-00001-CMC-1;
1:16-cv-02625-CMC)

Submitted: April 15, 2019                                         Decided: April 30, 2019

Before MOTZ and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Henry Stewart, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Robert Henry Stewart, Jr., 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 Stewart 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