UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6013
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TIAYON KARDELL EVANS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (2:04-cr-00099-RAJ-1; 2:10-cv-00601-RAJ)
Submitted: June 30, 2011 Decided: July 6, 2011
Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Tiayon Kardell Evans, Appellant Pro Se. Sherrie Scott
Capotosto, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Tiayon Kardell Evans seeks to appeal the district
court’s order and judgment denying his motion for recusal and
construing two motions challenging his convictions as successive
28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motions and dismissing them
without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We
affirm in part and dismiss in part.
Turning first to the denial of the recusal motion, we
have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Evans’ motion for recusal
for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v.
Evans, Nos. 2:04-cr-00099-RAJ-1; 2:10-cv-00601-RAJ (E.D. Va.
filed Dec. 1, 2010 & entered Dec. 7, 2010).
As for the order and judgment construing Evans’
motions challenging his convictions as successive § 2255
motions, the order and judgment are 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)
(2006). 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.
2
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
Evans has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny
a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal from the
dismissal of the successive § 2255 motions.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED IN PART,
DISMISSED IN PART
3