US v. Eltrentrose Liverman, No. 12-7615 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7615 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. ELTRENTROSE F. LIVERMAN, a/k/a Trent, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief District Judge. (2:95-cr-00151-JBF-FBS-7; 2:12-cv-00417-RBS) Submitted: January 17, 2013 Decided: January 22, 2013 Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eltrentrose F. Liverman, Appellant Pro Se. Howard Zlotnick, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport Virginia, for Appellee. Jacob News, Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Eltrentrose F. Liverman seeks to appeal the district court s order construing his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (2006) as a successive 28 motion and denying relief. U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) The order is not 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this reasonable jurists would assessment of constitutional wrong. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) the standard find by that demonstrating the claims district is that court s debatable or Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller- El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 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. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Liverman has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument 2 because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 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.
