Court Opinion

ID: 2820512
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-07-27 19:01:42.260919+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:54:39.555572
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 15-6178

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                        Plaintiff – Appellee,

          v.

SABINO TORRES-FLORES,

                        Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (7:10-cr-00070-FL-2; 7:13-cv-00076-FL)

Submitted:   July 23, 2015                  Decided:   July 27, 2015

Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Lee Davis, III, Lumberton, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Jennifer E. Wells, Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Sabino Torres-Flores seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

dismissing as untimely 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

Torres-Flores has not made the requisite showing.        Accordingly, we

deny Torres-Flores’ motion for a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal.      We dispense with oral argument because the

facts   and   legal   contentions   are   adequately   presented    in   the

                                     2
materials   before   this   court   and   argument   would   not    aid   the

decisional process.

                                                                   DISMISSED

                                    3