Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06460/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06460-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Cirilo Mata-Rosales
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6460

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CIRILO MATA-ROSALES,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., 

Senior District Judge. (1:11-cr-00079-JAB-1; 1:13-cv-00447-JABLPA)

Submitted: August 27, 2015 Decided: August 31, 2015

Before GREGORY, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Cirilo Mata-Rosales, Appellant Pro Se. Arnold L. Husser, OFFICE 

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Michael Francis Joseph, Angela 

Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greensboro, 

North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6460 Doc: 7 Filed: 08/31/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Cirilo Mata-Rosales seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

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 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 

Mata-Rosales 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: 15-6460 Doc: 7 Filed: 08/31/2015 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: 15-6460 Doc: 7 Filed: 08/31/2015 Pg: 3 of 3