Court Opinion

ID: 4299625
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-07-31 19:00:19.071208+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:42:14.817029
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 18-6352

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                    Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

JUAN BAUTISTA ALOMIA-TORRES, a/k/a Juan Baustista-Alomia, a/k/a Luis
Antonio Torres, a/k/a Edward Martinez, a/k/a Luis Alfredo Martinez, a/k/a John the
Jamaican, a/k/a John,

                    Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina,
at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, Chief District Judge. (3:97-cr-00040-FDW-2; 3:18-cv-
00148-FDW)

Submitted: July 26, 2018                                          Decided: July 31, 2018

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, FLOYD, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Juan Bautista Alomia-Torres, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Juan Bautista Alomia-Torres seeks to appeal the district court’s order treating his

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) 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) (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 Alomia-Torres has

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal.

       Additionally, we construe Alomia-Torres’ notice of appeal and informal brief as

an application to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. United States v. Winestock,

340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a successive

§ 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on either:

                                             2
      (1) newly discovered evidence that . . . would be sufficient to establish by
      clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have
      found the movant guilty of the offense; or

      (2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral
      review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable.

28 U.S.C. § 2255(h).    Alomia-Torres’ claims do not satisfy either of these criteria.

Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion.

      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

                                            3