Court Opinion

ID: 1087062
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-10-25 18:36:48.067682+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:41.833921
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 13-6926

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

RAUL TRONCO-RAMIREZ, a/k/a Carlos Cruz Perez, a/k/a Carlos
Cruz, a/k/a Godfather, a/k/a Padrino,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg.     Michael F. Urbanski,
District Judge.    (5:10-cr-00028-MFU-RSB-4; 5:12-cv-80534-MFU-
RSB)

Submitted:   October 22, 2013             Decided:   October 25, 2013

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Raul Tronco-Ramirez, Appellant Pro Se.    Grayson A. Hoffman,
Assistant United States Attorney, Harrisonburg, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Raul     Tronco-Ramirez         seeks      to     appeal    the     district

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West

Supp.    2013)    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)          (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     Tronco-Ramirez       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

                                            2
before   this   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional

process.

                                                                    DISMISSED

                                     3