Court Opinion

ID: 2647484
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-12-24 19:49:44.566279+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:27:44.518387
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 13-7395

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                      Plaintiff – Appellee,

          v.

JOSE ANGEL PEREZ, a/k/a Angel,

                      Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (7:93-cr-00026-F-1)

Submitted:   December 19, 2013            Decided:   December 24, 2013

Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jose Angel Perez, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker,
Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Jose Angel Perez seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion to reconsider its

order treating his previous Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as a

successive    28    U.S.C.A.    § 2255    (West       Supp.       2013)    motion,     and

dismissing it on that basis.            The order is not appealable unless

a   circuit     justice        or     judge     issues        a     certificate        of

appealability.      28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006).                     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)

(2006).    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 Perez 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

                                         2
contentions   are   adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                               DISMISSED

                                   3