US v. Ivan Copeland

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [999539908-2] Originating case number: 2:13-cr-00091-RGD-DEM-1,2:14-cv-00539-RGD. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999645592]. Mailed to: Ivan Copeland. [15-6196]

Appeal: 15-6196

Doc: 16

Filed: 08/24/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6196

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
IVAN ALEXANDER COPELAND, a/k/a Bert,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Robert G. Doumar, Senior
District Judge. (2:13-cr-00091-RGD-DEM-1; 2:14-cv-00539-RGD)

Submitted:

August 20, 2015

Decided:

August 24, 2015

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ivan Alexander Copeland, Appellant Pro Se.
Benjamin L. Hatch,
Assistant
United
States
Attorney,
Norfolk,
Virginia,
for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6196

Doc: 16

Filed: 08/24/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Ivan

Alexander

Copeland

28

U.S.C.

district

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or
certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
issue

absent

“a

prisoner

the

appealability.

(2012)

28

U.S.C.

showing

of

the

denial

of

a

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).

district

court

satisfies

this

jurists

would

reasonable

§ 2255

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”
When

of

his

the

motion.

a

on

appeal

order

issues

relief

to

court’s

judge

denying

seeks

denies

relief

standard
find

by

that

on

the

merits,

demonstrating

the

district

a

that

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).
denies

relief

demonstrate

both

on

procedural

that

the

When the district court

grounds,

dispositive

the

prisoner

procedural

ruling

must
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
Copeland has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny his motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss
the appeal.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

2

Appeal: 15-6196

before

Doc: 16

this

Court

Filed: 08/24/2015

and

Pg: 3 of 3

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process.
DISMISSED

3