US v. Devon Sturdivant
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for other relief [1000103742-2] Originating case number: 3:06-cr-00194-RJC-1,3:12-cv-00496-RJC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. .. [13-7237]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
DEVON RAYMUS STURDIVANT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina,
at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:06-cr-00194-RJC-1; 3:12-cv00496-RJC)
Submitted: June 30, 2017
Decided: July 14, 2017
Before MOTZ, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Devon Raymus Sturdivant, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United
States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina; Gretchen C. F. Shappert, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
Devon Raymus Sturdivant filed a pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion seeking
relief from his sentence. Subsequently, Sturdivant, through counsel, filed a supplement
in which he also sought relief from his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) and
through petitions for writ of error coram nobis and audita querela. The district court
denied relief. Sturdivant appeals.
With respect to the denial of relief under § 2255, the district court’s order is not
appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). 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
(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 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 Sturdivant has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss this portion of the appeal.
The district court also denied relief under § 2241 and denied Sturdivant’s petitions
for writ of error coram nobis and audita querela. With respect to this portion of the
district court’s order, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Pg: 3 of 3
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v.
Sturdivant, Nos. 3:06-cr-00194-RCJ-1; 3:12-cv-00496-RJC (W.D.N.C. June 6, 2013).
We deny the motion to redact sensitive information and dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED IN PART;
AFFIRMED IN PART
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?