US v. Donald Shealey

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:08-cr-00282-F-2,5:12-cv-00538-F Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999940688]. Mailed to: appellant. [16-6495]

Appeal: 16-6495

Doc: 8

Filed: 10/04/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6495

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DONALD STANTON SHEALEY, a/k/a Face, a/k/a Diddy, a/k/a Face
Diddy, a/k/a The City, a/k/a Donald Santon Shealey,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:08-cr-00282-F-2; 5:12-cv-00538-F)

Submitted:

September 29, 2016

Decided:

October 4, 2016

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Donald Stanton Shealey, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Aubrey West,
Assistant United States Attorney, Jonathan Philip Holbrook,
Tobin Webb Lathan, Banumathi Rangarajan, Denise Walker, Seth
Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6495

Doc: 8

Filed: 10/04/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Donald Stanton Shealey seeks to appeal the district court’s
order construing his motion for a reduction in sentence as a
successive and unauthorized 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and
denying it on that basis.

The order is not appealable unless a

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
28

U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1)(B)

(2012).

A

certificate

of

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right.”
(2012).

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)

When the district court denies relief on the merits, a

prisoner

satisfies

this

jurists

would

reasonable

standard
find

by

that

demonstrating

the

district

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

on

both

procedural

that

the

When the district court

grounds,

dispositive

the

prisoner

procedural

must

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
Shealey has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
dispense

with

oral

argument

because

2

the

facts

and

We

legal

Appeal: 16-6495

Doc: 8

contentions

Filed: 10/04/2016

are

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3