Court Opinion

ID: 9365130
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-21 21:00:28.635575+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:43.502403
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7213      Doc: 6        Filed: 01/20/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-7213

        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; 2:21-
        cv-00226-RAJ)

        Submitted: January 17, 2023                                       Decided: January 20, 2023

        Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Kenneth Stuart, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7213         Doc: 6      Filed: 01/20/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Kenneth Stuart appeals the district court’s order denying his motions for a certificate

        of appealability, for the appointment of counsel, and for an order authorizing a deposition.

        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, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74

        (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 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