US v. Ivan Stevenson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:93-cr-30025-JPJ-3,5:14-cv-80740-JPJ-RSB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999479816]. Mailed to: Ivan Stevenson. [14-7109]

Appeal: 14-7109

Doc: 12

Filed: 11/21/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7109

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
IVAN JULIAN STEVENSON, a/k/a Ike, a/k/a Isaac,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. James P. Jones, District
Judge. (5:93-cr-30025-JPJ-3; 5:14-cv-80740-JPJ-RSB)

Submitted:

November 18, 2014

Decided:

November 21, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ivan Julian Stevenson, Appellant Pro Se.
Timothy J. Heaphy,
United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia; Jean Barrett Hudson,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7109

Doc: 12

Filed: 11/21/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Ivan
court’s

order

Julian

dismissing

(2012) motion.
justice

or

Stevenson
as

seeks

to

successive

appeal

his

28

the

district

U.S.C.

§ 2255

The order is not appealable unless a circuit

judge

issues

a

certificate

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).

of

appealability.

28

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

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 Stevenson 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: 14-7109

Doc: 12

contentions

are

Filed: 11/21/2014

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

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

3