Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06494/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06494-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Johnny Elias Gonzalez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6494

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

JOHNNY ELIAS GONZALEZ, a/k/a Solo,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, 

Jr., District Judge. (3:08-cr-00134-RJC-DSC-18; 3:14-cv-00234-

RJC)

Submitted: November 17, 2016 Decided: November 21, 2016

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit 

Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Johnny Elias Gonzalez, Appellant Pro Se. Adam Christopher 

Morris, Kevin Zolot, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Jill 

Westmoreland Rose, United States Attorney, Charlotte, North 

Carolina; Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, 

Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6494 Doc: 12 Filed: 11/21/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Johnny Elias 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 Gonzalez’s motion for appointment of counsel, deny a 

certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

Appeal: 16-6494 Doc: 12 Filed: 11/21/2016 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: 16-6494 Doc: 12 Filed: 11/21/2016 Pg: 3 of 3