Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07890/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07890-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alejandro Salinas Garcia
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7890

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

ALEJANDRO SALINAS GARCIA, a/k/a Alex,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. 

Voorhees, District Judge. (5:09-cr-00025-RLV-DCK-1; 5:13-cv00149-RLV)

Submitted: April 29, 2016 Decided: June 7, 2016

Before DUNCAN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dallas Craig Hughes, LAW OFFICES OF D. CRAIG HUGHES, Houston, 

Texas, for Appellant. Thomas Richard Ascik, Assistant United 

States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina; Steven R. Kaufman, 

William Michael Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys, 

Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7890 Doc: 10 Filed: 06/07/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Alejandro Salinas Garcia seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on 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 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 

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

his motion for 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: 15-7890 Doc: 10 Filed: 06/07/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-7890 Doc: 10 Filed: 06/07/2016 Pg: 3 of 3