Court Opinion

ID: 4191588
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-08-01 19:01:20.938188+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:47:25.805636
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 17-6606

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                    Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

EMMA LETICIA NAJERA,

                    Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Chief District Judge. (7:12-cr-00066-GEC-3; 7:17-cv-81225-
GEC-RSB)

Submitted: July 27, 2017                                          Decided: August 1, 2017

Before AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Emma Leticia Najera, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Andrew Bassford, Assistant United States
Attorney, Laura Day Rottenborn, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Emma Leticia Najera seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as

untimely her 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 Najera 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 contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

                                                                               DISMISSED

                                             2