Court Opinion

ID: 2716335
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-08-08 07:01:48.116002+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:01:48.105764
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 14-6718

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

MEBLIN XIOMAR FIGUEROA,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Lynchburg.     Norman K. Moon, Senior
District Judge. (6:05-cr-00024-NKM-1; 6:14-cv-80720-NKM-RSB)

Submitted:   July 29, 2014                 Decided:   August 1, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Meblin Xiomar Figueroa, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Ray Wolthuis,
Assistant  United   States  Attorney,  Roanoke, Virginia,  for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Meblin Xiomar Figueroa seeks to appeal the district

court’s    order       construing        his       filing      as    an      unauthorized,

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 Figueroa 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