US v. Rodney Stewart

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:06-cr-00046-JPJ-1,1:13-cv-80662-JPJ-RSB. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999314044]. Mailed to: Rodney Stewart. [13-7756]

Appeal: 13-7756

Doc: 6

Filed: 03/12/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7756

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; 1:13-cv-80662-JPJ-RSB)

Submitted:

February 5, 2014

Decided:

March 12, 2014

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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 13-7756

Doc: 6

Filed: 03/12/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

Edward

seeks

PER CURIAM:
Rodney

Stewart

to

appeal

the

district

court’s order dismissing his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 motion as a
successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.
appealable

unless

a

circuit

certificate of appealability.
A

certificate

of

justice

The order is not

or

judge

issues

a

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).

appealability

will

not

issue

absent

“a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).
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 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: 13-7756

Doc: 6

contentions

Filed: 03/12/2014

are

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3