US v. Ronald Stewart

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to file informal brief [999143160-2]; denying for certificate of appealability Originating case number: 1:04-cr-00376-WDQ-1,1:12-cv-00925-WDQ Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999203338]. Mailed to: Ronald Stewart. [13-6775]

Appeal: 13-6775

Doc: 8

Filed: 09/27/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6775

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
RONALD NATHANIEL STEWART,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
William D. Quarles, Jr., District
Judge. (1:04-cr-00376-WDQ-1; 1:12-cv-00925-WDQ)

Submitted:

September 24, 2013

Before NIEMEYER and
Senior Circuit Judge.

THACKER,

Decided:

Circuit

September 27, 2013

Judges,

and

HAMILTON,

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald Nathaniel Stewart, Appellant Pro Se. Albert David
Copperthite,
Assistant
United
States
Attorney,
Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-6775

Doc: 8

Filed: 09/27/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Ronald Nathaniel Stewart seeks to appeal the district
court’s orders dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255
(West Supp. 2013) motion and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)
motion

for

unless

a

reconsideration.

circuit

appealability.

justice

The

or

orders

judge

are

issues

a

not

appealable

certificate

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006).

of

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

both

on

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 grant Stewart’s motion to file a supplemental informal brief
raising a claim under Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151,
2

Appeal: 13-6775

Doc: 8

Filed: 09/27/2013

Pg: 3 of 3

2155, 2163-64 (2013) (holding that any fact that increases the
statutory mandatory minimum is an element of the offense and
must be submitted to the jury and found beyond a reasonable
doubt). *
legal
before

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

contentions
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.

DISMISSED

*

We note that Alleyne has not been
applicable to cases on collateral review.

3

made

retroactively