Court Opinion

ID: 3214388
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-06-17 19:01:13.254159+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:39:36.515927
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 15-8003

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff – Appellee,

          v.

MOISES FRIAS-GUEVARA,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.   William L. Osteen,
Jr., Chief District Judge.  (1:11-cr-00324-WO-1; 1:14-cv-00175-
WO-LPA)

Submitted:   June 13, 2016                 Decided:   June 17, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Moises Frias-Guevara, Appellant Pro Se.    Sandra Jane Hairston,
Robert Michael Hamilton, Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United
States Attorneys, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Moises Frias-Guevara 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

Frias-Guevara 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

                                 2
are adequately presented in the materials before this court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                      DISMISSED

                                3