Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06238/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06238-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Norberto Quinones
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6238

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v.

NORBERTO QUINONES, a/k/a Jose Rosado, a/k/a “J”, 

Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge. 

(8:04-cr-00234-RWT-3; 8:11-cv-03239-RWT) 

Submitted: June 30, 2016 Decided: July 6, 2016

Before KING, GREGORY, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Norberto Quinones, Appellant Pro Se. Deborah A. Johnston, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for 

Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

Appeal: 16-6238 Doc: 12 Filed: 07/06/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM: 

Norberto Quinones seeks to appeal the district court’s 

orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and 

denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend that 

judgment. The orders are 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 

Quinones 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: 16-6238 Doc: 12 Filed: 07/06/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

DISMISSED

Appeal: 16-6238 Doc: 12 Filed: 07/06/2016 Pg: 3 of 3