Court Opinion

ID: 1038490
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-08-28 00:01:11.070045+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:47:24.033555
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                               No. 13-6414

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff – Appellee,

          v.

CARLOS BLADIMIR MONTOYA, a/k/a Ciego,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.   Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (1:09-cr-00247-CMH-1; 1:12-cv-01110-CMH)

Submitted:   August 20, 2013                 Decided:   August 27, 2013

Before GREGORY, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark Allen Yurachek, MARK ALLEN YURACHEK & ASSOCIATES, Falls
Church,   Virginia,  for   Appellant.  Rebeca   Hidalgo  Bellows,
Patricia Tolliver Giles, Morris Rudolph Parker, Jr., Assistant
United States Attorneys, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

            Carlos Bladimir Montoya seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West

Supp.    2013)    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)            (2006).             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)

(2006).    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 Montoya 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

                                             2
contentions   are   adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                               DISMISSED

                                   3