US v. Ivan Stevenson, No. 14-7109 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7109 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. IVAN JULIAN STEVENSON, a/k/a Ike, a/k/a Isaac, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. James P. Jones, District Judge. (5:93-cr-30025-JPJ-3; 5:14-cv-80740-JPJ-RSB) Submitted: November 18, 2014 Decided: November 21, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ivan Julian Stevenson, Appellant Pro Se. Timothy J. Heaphy, United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia; Jean Barrett Hudson, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ivan court’s order Julian dismissing (2012) motion. justice or Stevenson as seeks to successive appeal his 28 the district U.S.C. § 2255 The order is not appealable unless a circuit judge issues a certificate U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). of appealability. 28 A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). 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. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Stevenson 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