Filed: Dec. 21, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7201 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus STANLEY STEPHENS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, Senior District Judge. (CR-99-249; CA-03-281-4-CWH) Submitted: December 15, 2005 Decided: December 21, 2005 Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7201 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus STANLEY STEPHENS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, Senior District Judge. (CR-99-249; CA-03-281-4-CWH) Submitted: December 15, 2005 Decided: December 21, 2005 Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7201
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
STANLEY STEPHENS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, Senior District
Judge. (CR-99-249; CA-03-281-4-CWH)
Submitted: December 15, 2005 Decided: December 21, 2005
Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stanley Stephens, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Stanley Stephens, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the
district court’s orders (1) denying relief on his motion filed
under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and (2) denying his motions to amend
and for reconsideration. The orders are not appealable unless a
circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner
satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists
would find that the district court’s assessment of his
constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any
dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also
debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell,
537 U.S. 322,
336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel,
529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v.
Lee,
252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently
reviewed the record and conclude that Stephens 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 the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 2 -