US v. Preston Everett, No. 12-7021 (4th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7021 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. PRESTON CORNELIUS EVERETT, a/k/a P, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:05-cr-00019-LMB-1) Submitted: November 2, 2012 Decided: November 7, 2012 Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Preston Cornelius Everett, Appellant Pro Se. G. David Hackney, Assistant United States Attorney, Sarah E. Roque, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Preston Cornelius Everett seeks to appeal the district court s order sentence. denying relief on his Motion to Correct his Because Everett sought to challenge his sentence, the district court construed the action as a successive motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) and dismissed the action because Everett failed to first obtain authorization from this court to file § 2255(h). or judge a successive 2255 motion. 28 U.S.C.A. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice issues a certificate § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). issue § absent a appealability. 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right. of showing of the denial 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). of a 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 Cockrell, (2000); (2003). see Miller-El v. 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 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. 529 U.S. at 484-85. 2 Slack, We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Everett 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 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.