Court Opinion

ID: 9412220
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-28 21:01:43.564304+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:32.106789
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7090      Doc: 10         Filed: 07/27/2023     Pg: 1 of 4

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-7090

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        FRANKLIN ANTONIO RIOS, a/k/a Frank, a/k/a Frankie,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

                                               No. 22-7091

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        FRANKLIN ANTONIO RIOS, a/k/a Frank, a/k/a Frankie,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:18-cr-00051-D-1; 5:22-cv-00060-D)

        Submitted: July 25, 2023                                           Decided: July 27, 2023

        Before WYNN and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7090      Doc: 10         Filed: 07/27/2023    Pg: 2 of 4

        Dismissed in part, affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Franklin Antonio Rios, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7090       Doc: 10          Filed: 07/27/2023    Pg: 3 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               Franklin Antonio Rios seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his

        28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate

        release. The court’s order denying relief on Rios’ 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion is not

        appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28

        U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). 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). When the district

        court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that

        reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims

        debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (2017). 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. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing

        Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

               Limiting our review of the record to the issues raised in Rios’ informal brief, we

        conclude that Rios has not made the requisite showing. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); see also

        Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important

        document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that

        brief.”). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal of the

        district court’s denial of § 2255 relief.

               The district court also denied, in the same order, Rios’ motion for compassionate

        release. Rios does not challenge that decision on appeal, and he has thus forfeited review

                                                      3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7090         Doc: 10       Filed: 07/27/2023     Pg: 4 of 4

        of that decision. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); see also Jackson, 775 F.3d at 177. We therefore

        affirm the district court’s order insofar as it denied compassionate release.

               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 IN PART,
                                                                                AFFIRMED IN PART

                                                      4