Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-07111/USCOURTS-ca4-16-07111-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David Amezquita-Franco
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7111

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DAVID AMEZQUITA-FRANCO,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

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

Judge. (3:12-cr-00052-HEH-DJN-1; 3:16-cv-00526-HEH)

Submitted: January 31, 2017 Decided: February 2, 2017

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Amezquita-Franco, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen David 

Schiller, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7111 Doc: 13 Filed: 02/02/2017 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

David Amezquita-Franco seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order dismissing as successive 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 

Amezquita-Franco has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny as moot Amezquita-Franco’s motion to 

expedite, 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 

Appeal: 16-7111 Doc: 13 Filed: 02/02/2017 Pg: 2 of 3
3

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 16-7111 Doc: 13 Filed: 02/02/2017 Pg: 3 of 3