US v. Ronald Stewart, No. 13-6775 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6775 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. RONALD NATHANIEL STEWART, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (1:04-cr-00376-WDQ-1; 1:12-cv-00925-WDQ) Submitted: September 24, 2013 Before NIEMEYER and Senior Circuit Judge. THACKER, Decided: Circuit September 27, 2013 Judges, and HAMILTON, Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronald Nathaniel Stewart, Appellant Pro Se. Albert David Copperthite, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ronald Nathaniel Stewart seeks to appeal the district court s orders dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2013) motion and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for unless a reconsideration. circuit appealability. justice The or orders judge are issues a not appealable certificate 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). of 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 must 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 Stewart has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We grant Stewart s motion to file a supplemental informal brief raising a claim under Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151, 2 2155, 2163-64 (2013) (holding that any fact that increases the statutory mandatory minimum is an element of the offense and must be submitted to the jury and found beyond a reasonable doubt). * legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. DISMISSED * We note that Alleyne has not been applicable to cases on collateral review. 3 made retroactively
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.
