US v. Tiayon Evans, No. 09-7538 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7538 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TIAYON KARDELL EVANS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:04-cr-00099-RAJ-1; 2:06-cv-00162-RAJ-JEB) Submitted: June 17, 2010 Before MOTZ and Circuit Judge. KING, Decided: Circuit Judges, and June 23, 2010 HAMILTON, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tiayon Kardell Evans, Appellant Pro Se. Sherrie Scott Capotosto, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Tiayon Kardell Evans seeks to appeal the district court s order construing his motion to set aside the criminal judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) and dismissing it as successive. a circuit justice appealability. 369 F.3d or The order is not appealable unless judge issues a certificate of 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); Reid v. Angelone, 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. (2006). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this jurists would reasonable standard find by that demonstrating the district that 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). denies relief demonstrate on both procedural that the When the district court grounds, dispositive the prisoner procedural must ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. We have independently reviewed the Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. record Evans has not made the requisite showing. a certificate dispense with of appealability oral argument and 2 conclude that Accordingly, we deny dismiss because and the the appeal. facts and We legal 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.
