US v. James Lesane, No. 12-8158 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on May 2, 2013.
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-8158 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JAMES STEVEN LESANE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:08-cr-00185-REP-1; 3:10-cv-00109-REP) Submitted: April 19, 2013 Decided: May 2, 2013 Before WILKINSON and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Steven Lesane, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Wu, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: James Steven Lesane first seeks to appeal the district court s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion. 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). 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 both on 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 denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Lesane has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal of the district court s order denying Lesane § 2255 relief. 2 Lesane also seeks to appeal the district court s order denying his second Fed. R. Crim. P. 33 motion. the record and find no reversible error. We have reviewed Accordingly, we affirm the order denying Lesane s second Rule 33 motion for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Lesane, Nos. 3:08-cr-00185-REP-1; 3:10-cv-00109-REP (E.D. Va. Dec. 13, 2012). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions before this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. DISMISSED IN PART; AFFIRMED 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.
