Court Opinion

ID: 814341
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2012-12-26 20:38:59+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:36:28.086964
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 12-6703

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                 Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

LUZ RODRIGUEZ,

                 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. James P. Jones, District
Judge. (5:08-cr-00038-JPJ-2; 5:10-cv-80280-JPJ-RSB)

Submitted:   December 20, 2012             Decided:   December 26, 2012

Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jeffrey Michael Brandt, ROBINSON & BRANDT, PSC, Covington,
Kentucky, for Appellant.   Jeb Thomas Terrien, Assistant United
States Attorney, Louis K. Nagy, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Harrisonburg, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Luz     Rodriguez      seeks   to    appeal    the   district       court’s

order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 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) (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 Rodriguez 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