Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-06979/USCOURTS-ca4-14-06979-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6979

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ALFONSO D’IANTIGNAC, a/k/a Playboy,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District 

Judge. (1:10-cr-00241-JFM-1; 1:13-cv-03115-JFM)

Submitted: January 22, 2015 Decided: January 27, 2015

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alfonso D’Iantignac, Appellant Pro Se. Rod J. Rosenstein, 

United States Attorney, Michael Clayton Hanlon, Assistant United 

States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-6979 Doc: 18 Filed: 01/27/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Alfonso D’Iantignac seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012)

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) (2012). 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) (2012). 

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 D’Iantignac has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave 

to proceed in forma pauperis, deny the motion to appoint 

counsel, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

Appeal: 14-6979 Doc: 18 Filed: 01/27/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

in the materials before this court and argument would not aid 

the decisional process. 

DISMISSED

Appeal: 14-6979 Doc: 18 Filed: 01/27/2015 Pg: 3 of 3