United States of America v. Kenneth Stuart, a/k/a Bones, a/k/a Maurice Beale, a/k/a Brutal, a/k/a Hooda, a/k/a…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-6859
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KENNETH STUART, a/k/a Bones, a/k/a Maurice Beale, a/k/a Brutal, a/k/a Hooda,
a/k/a Kenneth Steward,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, Senior District Judge. (2:17-cr-00061-RAJ-LRL-1; 2:23-
cv-00051-RAJ)
Submitted: February 27, 2024 Decided: March 1, 2024
Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kenneth Stuart, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Kenneth Stuart seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing his 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 motion as successive and unauthorized and denying various pro se motions related
to his postconviction proceedings. The orders are 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, as here, 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 Stuart has not made
the requisite showing. 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

-- 2 of 2 --