Court Opinion

ID: 2820934
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-07-28 19:02:07.996291+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:52:10.204684
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 15-6709

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff – Appellee,

          v.

GERARD MONTERO FELDER, a/k/a Baby,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees,
District Judge. (5:06-cr-00022-RLV-CH-2; 5:12-cv-00056-RLV)

Submitted:   July 23, 2015                 Decided:   July 28, 2015

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

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gerard Montero Felder, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray,
Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

      Gerard Montero Felder seeks to appeal the district court’s

order 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

Felder 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