US v. Lee Stevenson, No. 09-6401 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6401 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. LEE RONALD STEVENSON, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:03-cr-00046-FPS-JES-1; 1:06-cv00092-FPS-JES) Submitted: July 23, 2009 Decided: July 29, 2009 Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lee Ronald Stevenson, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Hugh McWilliams, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Lee court s Ronald order Stevenson denying seeks relief (West Supp. 2009) motion. on to his appeal 28 the district U.S.C.A. § 2255 The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional prisoner right. satisfies reasonable jurists constitutional 28 this would claims by U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) standard find the by that district (2006). demonstrating any assessment court is A that of the debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. 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 Stevenson has not made the requisite showing. * certificate dispense of with appealability oral argument and dismiss because * Accordingly, we deny a the the appeal. facts and We legal Stevenson s claim that his attorney was ineffective in failing to challenge the validity of the predicate state conviction underlying his federal conviction was neither procedurally barred nor procedurally defaulted, but we conclude that it is without merit. 2 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
