United States of America v. Ronald Nathaniel Stewart

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-6775
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
RONALD NATHANIEL STEWART,
Defendant - Appellant.
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)
Submitted: September 24, 2013 Decided: September 27, 2013
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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
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,

-- 2 of 3 --

3
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.
DISMISSED
* We note that Alleyne has not been made retroactively
applicable to cases on collateral review.

-- 3 of 3 --