US v. Stephen Mill

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case numbers: 2:97-cr-00815-DCN-1, 2:11-cv-02522-DCN. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999226423]. Mailed to: Stephen Mills. [13-7155]

Appeal: 13-7155

Doc: 7

Filed: 10/25/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7155

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
STEPHEN JAMES MILLS,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(2:97-cr-00815-DCN-1; 2:11-cv-02522-DCN)

Submitted:

October 22, 2013

Decided:

October 25, 2013

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stephen James Mills, Appellant Pro Se. Sean Kittrell, Assistant
United
States
Attorney,
Charleston,
South
Carolina,
for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-7155

Doc: 7

Filed: 10/25/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Stephen

James

Mills

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West
Supp. 2013) motion and denying his motion for reconsideration.
The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006).
issue

absent

“a

of

appealability.

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

28

showing

of

the

denial

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006).

of

a

When the

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies
this

standard

by

demonstrating

that

reasonable

jurists

would

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional
claims is debatable or wrong.

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

484

Cockrell,

(2000);

(2003).

see

Miller-El

v.

537

U.S.

322,

336-38

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 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 Mills has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
dispense

with

oral

argument

because

2

the

facts

and

We

legal

Appeal: 13-7155

Doc: 7

contentions

Filed: 10/25/2013

are

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

3