US v. Tiayon Evan, No. 11-6013 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6013 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TIAYON KARDELL EVANS, Defendant -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; 2:10-cv-00601-RAJ) Submitted: June 30, 2011 Decided: July 6, 2011 Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 and judgment denying his motion for recusal and construing two motions challenging his convictions as successive 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motions and dismissing them without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We affirm in part and dismiss in part. Turning first to the denial of the recusal motion, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Evans motion for recusal for the reasons stated by the district court. Evans, Nos. 2:04-cr-00099-RAJ-1; United States v. 2:10-cv-00601-RAJ (E.D. Va. filed Dec. 1, 2010 & entered Dec. 7, 2010). As for the motions challenging motions, the order order his and and judgment convictions judgment are construing successive as not Evans § 2255 appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). 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 reasonable satisfies this jurists would standard find that by the demonstrating district that court s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. 2 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 ruling must is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. denial of a constitutional right. We have independently reviewed the record Evans has not made the requisite showing. and conclude that Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal from the dismissal of the successive § 2255 motions. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART 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.
