US v. Stephen Pollard

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:93-cr-00287-JCC-1,1:96-cv-707 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998702570]. Mailed to: Stephen E. Pollard. [11-7019]

Appeal: 11-7019

Document: 12

Date Filed: 10/18/2011

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7019

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
STEPHEN EARL POLLARD, a/k/a James Earl Edwards,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (1:93-cr-00287-JCC-1; 1:96-cv-707)

Submitted:

October 13, 2011

Decided:

October 18, 2011

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stephen Earl Pollard, Appellant Pro Se.
Patrick Joseph
Finnerty, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria,
Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-7019

Document: 12

Date Filed: 10/18/2011

Page: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Stephen

Earl

Pollard

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2011)
motion as successive.

The order is not appealable unless a

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
28

U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1)(B)

(2006).

A

certificate

of

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right.”
(2006).

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)

When the district court denies relief on the merits, a

prisoner

satisfies

this

jurists

would

reasonable

standard
find

by

that

demonstrating

the

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

demonstrate

on

both

procedural

that

the

When the district court

grounds,

dispositive

the

prisoner

procedural

must

ruling

is

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

Pollard has not made the requisite showing.

and

conclude

that

Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
dispense

with

oral

argument

because

2

the

facts

and

We

legal

Appeal: 11-7019

Document: 12

Date Filed: 10/18/2011

Page: 3 of 3

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

3