US v. Steven Lovin

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying a certificate of appealability Originating case number: 7:06-cr-00045-BO-3,7:12-cv-00015-BO Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999364610]. Mailed to: Steven Lovin. [13-7995]

Appeal: 13-7995

Doc: 9

Filed: 05/29/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7995

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
STEVEN RAY LOVIN,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington.
Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (7:06-cr-00045-BO-3; 7:12-cv-00015-BO)

Submitted:

May 20, 2014

Decided:

May 29, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Steven Ray Lovin, Appellant Pro Se. G. Norman Acker, III, Eric
Evenson, Jennifer
P.
May-Parker,
Assistant
United
States
Attorneys, J. Frank Bradsher, Joshua Bryan Royster, Seth Morgan
Wood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-7995

Doc: 9

Filed: 05/29/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Steven Ray Lovin seeks to appeal the district court’s
order

denying

relief

on

his

28

U.S.C.

§ 2255

(2012)

motion.

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
issue

absent

“a

constitutional

of

appealability.

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

right.”

28

28

showing
U.S.C.

of

the

denial

§ 2253(c)(2).

of

When

a
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 Lovin has not made the requisite showing.
deny

a

certificate

We dispense

with

of

oral

appealability
argument

2

and

because

Accordingly, we

dismiss
the

the

facts

appeal.

and

legal

Appeal: 13-7995

Doc: 9

contentions

Filed: 05/29/2014

are

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3