United States v. Leonus Peterson

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: April 22, 2024
• Docket: 23-7264
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7264 Doc: 5 Filed: 04/22/2024 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-7264

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

LEONUS STEVENSON PETERSON, a/k/a Doe, a/k/a Doughboy,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:18-cr-00090-JAG-1; 3:22-cv- 00502-JAG)

Submitted: April 18, 2024 Decided: April 22, 2024

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Leonus Stevenson Peterson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-7264 Doc: 5 Filed: 04/22/2024 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Leonus Stevenson Peterson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief

on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or

judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v.

Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (2017). 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.

Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

484 (2000)).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Peterson has not

made the requisite showing. In particular, we conclude that reasonable jurists could not

debate the district court’s rejection of Peterson’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel

as meritless. Similarly, reasonable jurists could not debate the district court’s conclusion

that Peterson’s challenge to his sentence was not cognizable in a § 2255 motion. See

United States v. Foote, 784 F.3d 931, 936-43 (4th Cir. 2015) (discussing cognizability of

sentencing challenges brought under § 2255). Finally, because “the motion and the files

and records of the case conclusively show that [Peterson was] entitled to no relief,” the

district court did not err by denying Peterson’s motion without holding an evidentiary

2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-7264 Doc: 5 Filed: 04/22/2024 Pg: 3 of 3

hearing. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal. 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