Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06412/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06412-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Javier Corona Barajas
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6412

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JAVIER CORONA BARAJAS, a/k/a Jose Hernandez Martinez,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief

District Judge. (2:12-cr-00036-RBS-FBS-1; 2:14-cv-00507-RBS)

Submitted: May 21, 2015 Decided: May 27, 2015

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Javier Corona Barajas, Appellant Pro Se. Melissa Elaine 

O’Boyle, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6412 Doc: 7 Filed: 05/27/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Javier Corona Barajas 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. 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 

Barajas 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

Appeal: 15-6412 Doc: 7 Filed: 05/27/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-6412 Doc: 7 Filed: 05/27/2015 Pg: 3 of 3