US v. Alphonso Stoddard

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. A certificate of appealability is denied. Originating case number: 1:14-cr-00076-TSE-3, 1:17-cv-01118-TSE. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency [1000280097]. Mailed to: Alphonso Stoddard. [17-7479]

Appeal: 17-7479

Doc: 9

Filed: 04/23/2018

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-7479

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ALPHONSO STODDARD,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:14-cr-00076-TSE-3; 1:17-cv-01118TSE)

Submitted: April 19, 2018

Decided: April 23, 2018

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and THACKER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alphonso Stoddard, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 17-7479

Doc: 9

Filed: 04/23/2018

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Alphonso Stoddard 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 Stoddard 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