US v. Tiayon Evans

Filing 920100623

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7538

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TIAYON KARDELL EVANS, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:04-cr-00099-RAJ-1; 2:06-cv-00162-RAJ-JEB)

Submitted:

June 17, 2010

Decided:

June 23, 2010

Before MOTZ and Circuit Judge.

KING,

Circuit

Judges,

and

HAMILTON,

Senior

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tiayon Kardell Evans, Appellant Pro Se. Sherrie Scott Capotosto, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Tiayon Kardell Evans seeks to appeal the district

court's order construing his motion to set aside the criminal judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) and dismissing it as successive. a circuit justice or The order is not appealable unless judge issues a certificate of

appealability. 369 F.3d 363,

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); Reid v. Angelone, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of

appealability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." (2006). prisoner reasonable 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)

When the district court denies relief on the merits, a satisfies jurists this would standard find that by the demonstrating district that

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). denies relief both on procedural the When the district court the prisoner ruling must is

grounds,

demonstrate

that

dispositive

procedural

debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. We have independently reviewed the Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. record and conclude that

Evans has not made the requisite showing. a certificate with of appealability argument and

Accordingly, we deny the appeal. and We legal

dismiss the

dispense

oral

because 2

facts

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3