Court Opinion

ID: 2681273
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-06-30 07:01:23.241547+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:41:07.662262
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 13-8056

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

CLARO GUTIERREZ GONZALEZ, a/k/a Sotero Cabrera Estrada,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.     Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (5:11-cr-00206-FL-2; 5:13-cv-00411-FL)

Submitted:   June 10, 2014                 Decided:   June 26, 2014

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Claro Gutierrez Gonzalez, Appellant Pro Se.   Jennifer P. May-
Parker,   Assistant  United States  Attorney,  Raleigh,  North
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Claro Gutierrez Gonzalez seeks to appeal the district

court’s    order     accepting     the     recommendation        of    the    magistrate

judge and 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 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