Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06422/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06422-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Harold W. Clarke
Appellee
Trudy Eliana Munoz Rueda
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6422

TRUDY ELIANA MUNOZ RUEDA,

 Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of 

Corrections,

 Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District 

Judge. (1:14-cv-00699-LMB-IDD)

Submitted: June 18, 2015 Decided: June 23, 2015

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jonathan P. Sheldon, SHELDON, FLOOD & HAYWOOD, PLC, Fairfax, 

Virginia, for Appellant. Rosemary Virginia Bourne, OFFICE OF THE 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6422 Doc: 16 Filed: 06/23/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Trudy Eliana Munoz Rueda seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The 

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A)

(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 petition 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 

Rueda 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: 15-6422 Doc: 16 Filed: 06/23/2015 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: 15-6422 Doc: 16 Filed: 06/23/2015 Pg: 3 of 3