Court Opinion

ID: 9962846
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-23 21:00:48.583602+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:40.512506
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7264      Doc: 5        Filed: 04/22/2024     Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 23-7264

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        LEONUS STEVENSON PETERSON, a/k/a Doe, a/k/a Doughboy,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:18-cr-00090-JAG-1; 3:22-cv-
        00502-JAG)

        Submitted: April 18, 2024                                           Decided: April 22, 2024

        Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Leonus Stevenson Peterson, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-7264       Doc: 5         Filed: 04/22/2024      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Leonus Stevenson Peterson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief

        on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The order is 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 the district court denies relief on the merits, a

        prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the

        district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v.

        Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (2017). 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.

        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 Peterson has not

        made the requisite showing. In particular, we conclude that reasonable jurists could not

        debate the district court’s rejection of Peterson’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel

        as meritless. Similarly, reasonable jurists could not debate the district court’s conclusion

        that Peterson’s challenge to his sentence was not cognizable in a § 2255 motion. See

        United States v. Foote, 784 F.3d 931, 936-43 (4th Cir. 2015) (discussing cognizability of

        sentencing challenges brought under § 2255). Finally, because “the motion and the files

        and records of the case conclusively show that [Peterson was] entitled to no relief,” the

        district court did not err by denying Peterson’s motion without holding an evidentiary

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-7264         Doc: 5     Filed: 04/22/2024     Pg: 3 of 3

        hearing. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b). 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

                                                    3