Court Opinion

ID: 9401135
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-10 21:00:32.516531+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:50.959901
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 20-6479      Doc: 29         Filed: 06/09/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 20-6479

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        LUIS CENOBIO BARRERA, a/k/a Daniel Munguia Casanova, a/k/a Felipe Molina
        Garcia,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:18-cr-00268-HMH-1; 6:20-
        cv-00420-HMH)

        Submitted: May 30, 2023                                              Decided: June 9, 2023

        Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Luis Cenobio Barrera, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 20-6479       Doc: 29         Filed: 06/09/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Luis Cenobio Barrera 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 Barrera has not made

        the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

        appeal. We also deny Barrera’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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