Court Opinion

ID: 214149
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2011-04-06 20:12:00+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:45:51.034192
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 11-6009

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

ANTONIO STEWART,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.     J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
Judge. (1:04-cr-00377-JFM-1; 1:10-cv-02039-JFM)

Submitted:   March 31, 2011                 Decided:   April 6, 2011

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Antonio Stewart, Appellant Pro Se. John Francis Purcell, Jr.,
Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Antonio Stewart seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010)

motion.    The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or

judge     issues     a     certificate      of    appealability.          28     U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (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) (2006).               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    Stewart’s      motion   for   a     certificate     of

appealability and dismiss the appeal.                     We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

                                            2
presented in the materials before the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

                                                     DISMISSED

                                  3