US v. Steven Hawkin

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:11-cr-00048-LMB-1,1:16-cv-00131-LMB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999873668].. [16-6466]

Appeal: 16-6466

Doc: 7

Filed: 06/29/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6466

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
STEVEN LAWRENCE HAWKINS, a/k/a Hawk,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District
Judge. (1:11-cr-00048-LMB-1; 1:16-cv-00131-LMB)

Submitted:

June 23, 2016

Decided:

June 29, 2016

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Steven Lawrence Hawkins, Appellant Pro Se. Philip Samuel Kaplan,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6466

Doc: 7

Filed: 06/29/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Steven Lawrence Hawkins seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and denying
his motion for reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rule Civil
Procedure 59(e).

The orders are not appealable unless a circuit

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
issue

absent

“a

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

28 U.S.C.

showing

of

the

denial

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).

of

a

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
Hawkins has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

2

Appeal: 16-6466

Doc: 7

adequately

Filed: 06/29/2016

presented

in

the

Pg: 3 of 3

materials

before

this

court

and

argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

3