US v. David Stuckey
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [999890180-2]. Originating case numbers: 4:11-cr-00417-TLW-11, 4:14-cv-01536-TLW. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999940733]. Mailed to: Appellant. [16-6839]
Appeal: 16-6839
Doc: 11
Filed: 10/04/2016
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6839
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DAVID STUCKEY, a/k/a Shortstop,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence.
Terry L. Wooten, Chief District
Judge. (4:11-cr-00417-TLW-11; 4:14-cv-01536-TLW)
Submitted:
September 29, 2016
Decided:
October 4, 2016
Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David Stuckey, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea,
Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 16-6839
Doc: 11
Filed: 10/04/2016
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
David Stuckey seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.
The order
is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability.
A
certificate
of
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
appealability
will
not
issue
absent
“a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).
relief
on
the
demonstrating
district
merits,
that
court’s
debatable
or
a
When the district court denies
prisoner
reasonable
assessment
wrong.
Slack
satisfies
jurists
this
would
of
the
v.
McDaniel,
standard
find
U.S.
that
the
claims
constitutional
529
by
is
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
claim of the denial of a constitutional right.
a
debatable
Slack, 529 U.S.
at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Stuckey has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we
deny Stuckey’s motion for a certificate of appealability and
dismiss the appeal.
facts
and
legal
We dispense with oral argument because the
contentions
are
2
adequately
presented
in
the
Appeal: 16-6839
Doc: 11
materials
before
Filed: 10/04/2016
this
court
Pg: 3 of 3
and
argument
would
not
aid
the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?