Court Opinion

ID: 9397976
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-27 21:00:32.013828+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:29.510840
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6170      Doc: 5         Filed: 05/26/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-6170

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        MIGUEL ZELAYA, a/k/a Most Wanted,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
        Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:15-cr-00121-RJC-DSC-37)

        Submitted: May 23, 2023                                             Decided: May 26, 2023

        Before AGEE, WYNN, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Miguel Zelaya, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6170         Doc: 5      Filed: 05/26/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Miguel Zelaya seeks to appeal the district court’s order construing his self-styled

        motions for “Renewed Judgment as Matter of Law” as 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motions and

        dismissing them as successive and unauthorized. 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, as here, 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 Zelaya 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