US v. Tiayon Evans

Filing 920100623

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7538 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TIAYON KARDELL EVANS, Defendant -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 KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?