US v. Eli Stafford

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case numbers: 4:10-cr-00075-FL-1, 4:14-cv-00193-FL. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999976763]. Mailed to: Appellant. [16-6707]

Appeal: 16-6707

Doc: 17

Filed: 11/29/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6707

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ELI STAFFORD,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (4:10-cr-00075-FL-1; 4:14-cv-00193-FL)

Submitted:

November 22, 2016

Before DIAZ and
Circuit Judge.

THACKER,

Circuit

Decided:

Judges,

November 29, 2016

and

DAVIS,

Senior

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eli Stafford, Appellant Pro Se.
Jennifer P. May-Parker,
Assistant United States Attorney, Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, John
Howarth
Bennett,
OFFICE
OF
THE
UNITED
STATES
ATTORNEY,
Greenville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6707

Doc: 17

Filed: 11/29/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Eli Stafford seeks to appeal the district court’s order
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying
relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, and the order
denying Stafford’s motions to alter or amend the judgment.
orders are
issues

not

a

appealable

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
issue

absent

“a

unless
of

circuit

justice

appealability.

or

28

judge
U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

a

The

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

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
Stafford has not made the requisite showing.

2

Accordingly, we

Appeal: 16-6707

Doc: 17

Filed: 11/29/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. *
dispense

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

*

Stafford obtained authorization from this court to file a
second or successive § 2255 motion to raise a claim based on
Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015).
That
authorized successive motion is currently pending in the
district court and is not the subject of this appeal.

3