Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06547/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06547-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mark Jason Fiel
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6547

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MARK JASON FIEL, a/k/a Jason,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District 

Judge. (3:10-cr-00170-HEH-6; 3:13-cv-00526-HEH)

Submitted: October 15, 2015 Decided: October 19, 2015

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark Jason Fiel, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Sinclair Duffey, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6547 Doc: 19 Filed: 10/19/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Mark Jason Fiel seeks to appeal the district court’s orders

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order 

are 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 

Fiel has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny

leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of 

appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral

Appeal: 15-6547 Doc: 19 Filed: 10/19/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

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

Appeal: 15-6547 Doc: 19 Filed: 10/19/2015 Pg: 3 of 3