Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07640/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07640-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bartolo Gonzalez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7640

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

BARTOLO GONZALEZ, a/k/a Bartolo Gonzalez-Saenz, a/k/a Arturo 

Gonzalez,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior 

District Judge. (5:10-cr-00172-F-1; 5:13-cv-00159-F)

Submitted: March 31, 2016 Decided: April 22, 2016

Before WILKINSON and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, 

Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eric Joseph Brignac, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, 

Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Eric David Goulian, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Jennifer P. May-Parker, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7640 Doc: 12 Filed: 04/22/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Bartolo Gonzalez 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 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 

Gonzalez has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny the motion for a certificate of appealability, deny the 

motion for appointment of counsel, and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

Appeal: 15-7640 Doc: 12 Filed: 04/22/2016 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: 15-7640 Doc: 12 Filed: 04/22/2016 Pg: 3 of 3