US v. Eli Stafford, No. 16-6707 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6707 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ELI STAFFORD, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (4:10-cr-00075-FL-1; 4:14-cv-00193-FL) Submitted: November 22, 2016 Before DIAZ and Circuit Judge. THACKER, Circuit Decided: Judges, November 29, 2016 and DAVIS, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eli Stafford, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, John Howarth Bennett, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Eli Stafford seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, and the order denying Stafford’s motions to alter or amend the judgment. orders are issues not a appealable certificate § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). issue absent “a unless of circuit justice appealability. or 28 judge U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right.” a The showing of the denial 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). 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. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Stafford has not made the requisite showing. 2 Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. * dispense with contentions are oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts We and legal materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED * Stafford obtained authorization from this court to file a second or successive § 2255 motion to raise a claim based on Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). That authorized successive motion is currently pending in the district court and is not the subject of this appeal. 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.
