From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Stewart

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Sep 27, 2013
540 F. App'x 171 (4th Cir. 2013)

Summary

rejecting as untimely a § 2255 motion seeking relief based on Alleyne

Summary of this case from United States v. Cherry

Opinion

No. 13-6775

2013-09-27

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RONALD NATHANIEL STEWART, Defendant - Appellant.

Ronald Nathaniel Stewart, Appellant Pro Se. Albert David Copperthite, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.


UNPUBLISHED

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) Before NIEMEYER and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 reconsideration. The orders 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. 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 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, 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). 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.

We note that Alleyne has not been made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review.

DISMISSED


Summaries of

United States v. Stewart

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Sep 27, 2013
540 F. App'x 171 (4th Cir. 2013)

rejecting as untimely a § 2255 motion seeking relief based on Alleyne

Summary of this case from United States v. Cherry

noting that Alleyne has not been made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review

Summary of this case from United States v. Williams

noting that Alleyne has not been made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review

Summary of this case from United States v. Kaymore

noting that Alleyne has not been made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review

Summary of this case from United States v. Barber

noting that Alleyne has not been made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review

Summary of this case from United States v. Springs

noting that Alleyne has not been made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review

Summary of this case from United States v. Ancrum

noting that Alleyne has not been made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review

Summary of this case from United States v. Smith

noting that Alleyne has not been made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review

Summary of this case from United States v. Welch

noting that Alleyne has not been made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review

Summary of this case from United States v. Stanback

noting that Alleyne has not been made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review

Summary of this case from Townsend v. United States

noting that Alleyne has not been made retroactively applicable on collateral review

Summary of this case from Winkelman v. Oddo

noting that Alleyne has not been made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review

Summary of this case from Eberhart v. United States

noting that Alleyne has not been made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review

Summary of this case from Revels v. United States

noting that Alleyne has not been made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review

Summary of this case from Florence v. United States

noting that Alleyne has not been made retroactively applicable on collateral review

Summary of this case from Harper v. Carter

noting that Alleyne has not been made retroactive on collateral review

Summary of this case from Shuff v. United States

noting that "Alleyne has not been made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review."

Summary of this case from Sanders v. United States
Case details for

United States v. Stewart

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RONALD NATHANIEL…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Sep 27, 2013

Citations

540 F. App'x 171 (4th Cir. 2013)

Citing Cases

McCotter v. United States

In opposing the government's timeliness argument, McCotter contends that his section 2255 motion is timely…

Green v. United States

The court rejects the argument because Alleyne is not retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review.…