US v. Steven Parker

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying a certificate of appealability. Originating case number: 2:13-cr-00090-RAJ-TEM-1, and 2:16-cv-00326-RAJ. Copies to all parties and the district court. [1000045825]. Mailed to: Steven Parker. [16-7460]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-7460 Doc: 5 Filed: 03/21/2017 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-7460 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. STEVEN VERNARD PARKER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:13-cr-00090-RAJ-TEM-1; 2:16-cv00326-RAJ) Submitted: February 17, 2017 Decided: March 21, 2017 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and DUNCAN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Steven Vernard Parker, Appellant Pro Se. V. Kathleen Dougherty, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 16-7460 Doc: 5 Filed: 03/21/2017 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Steven Vernard Parker 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. 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). 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 Parker 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 adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2

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?