UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.” 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.
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 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. We have reviewed
the record and find no reversible error. 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 are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED IN PART;
AFFIRMED IN PART
3