Court Opinion

ID: 4432803
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-08-23 19:00:20.463978+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:53:08.716864
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 19-6712

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                    Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

ULRISTE TULIN, a/k/a Blade,

                    Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District Judge. (1:15-cr-00173-LO-2; 1:19-cv-00157-LO)

Submitted: August 20, 2019                                        Decided: August 23, 2019

Before FLOYD and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ulriste Tulin, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Attias, National Security Division, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Ulriste Tulin seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to reconsider, and his

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3) motion for relief from judgment based on fraud and

misrepresentation. The orders are 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 Tulin 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