US v. Rodney Stewart

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:06-cr-00046-JPJ-1,1:10-cv-80213-JPJ Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998811464]. Mailed to: Rodney Stewart. [11-7488]

Appeal: 11-7488

Document: 5

Date Filed: 03/16/2012

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7488

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RODNEY EDWARD STEWART,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Abingdon.
James P. Jones, District
Judge. (1:06-cr-00046-JPJ-1; 1:10-cv-80213-JPJ)

Submitted:

March 5, 2012

Decided:

March 16, 2012

Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rodney Edward Stewart, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer R. Bockhorst,
Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-7488

Document: 5

Date Filed: 03/16/2012

Page: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Rodney

Edward

Stewart

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West
Supp.

2011)

motion.

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.

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 a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
We

dispense

with

oral

argument

2

because

the

facts

and

legal

Appeal: 11-7488

Document: 5

Date Filed: 03/16/2012

Page: 3 of 3

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

3