US v. Stephen Washington

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:06-cr-00068-TSE-1,1:10-cv-01213-TSE. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998937303]. Mailed to: Stephen Washington. [12-4253]

Appeal: 12-4253

Doc: 20

Filed: 09/13/2012

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-4253

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
STEPHEN J. WASHINGTON,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
T. S. Ellis, III, Senior
District Judge. (1:06-cr-00068-TSE-1; 1:10-cv-01213-TSE)

Submitted:

September 5, 2012

Decided:

September 13, 2012

Before SHEDD and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stephen J. Washington, Appellant Pro Se.
Kara Martin Traster,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-4253

Doc: 20

Filed: 09/13/2012

Pg: 2 of 3

J.

seeks

PER CURIAM:
Stephen
court’s

order

Washington

granting

in

part

and

to

appeal

denying

U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion.
appealable

unless

a

circuit

certificate of appealability.
A

certificate

of

justice

in

the

district

part

his

28

The order is not

or

judge

issues

a

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006).

appealability

will

not

issue

absent

“a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006).
relief

on

the

demonstrating
district

merits,
that

court’s

debatable

or

a

When the district court denies

prisoner

reasonable

assessment

wrong.

Slack

satisfies

jurists

this

would

of

the

v.

McDaniel,

standard

find

U.S.

that

the

claims

constitutional
529

by

is

473,

484

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).
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

claim of the denial of a constitutional right.

a

debatable

Slack, 529 U.S.

at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that

Washington

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
2

Appeal: 12-4253

before

Doc: 20

Filed: 09/13/2012

the

and

court

Pg: 3 of 3

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process.
DISMISSED

3