United States of America v. Leonus Stevenson Peterson, a/k/a Doe, a/k/a Doughboy

UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
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 of 3 --

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

-- 3 of 3 --