Court Opinion

ID: 9895143
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-04 21:00:39.964558+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:29.811486
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7082      Doc: 9        Filed: 11/03/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-7082

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        ARNULFO FAGOT-MAXIMO, a/k/a El Tio,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, Senior District Judge. (1:15-cr-00290-LMB-6; 1:21-cv-
        00849-LO)

        Submitted: September 13, 2023                                Decided: November 3, 2023

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

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Arnulfo Fagot-Maximo, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7082         Doc: 9       Filed: 11/03/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Arnulfo Fagot-Maximo seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on

        his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The order 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)).

               We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Fagot-Maximo 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