Court Opinion

ID: 801248
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2012-05-30 19:29:05+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:39.335082
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 11-7649

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

FROILAN IGNACIO MANANSALA,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (1:07-cr-00440-JCC-1; 1:09-cv-00553-JCC)

Submitted:   May 24, 2012                       Decided:   May 30, 2012

Before MOTZ and    DAVIS,   Circuit   Judges,   and   HAMILTON,   Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Froilan Ignacio Manansala, Appellant Pro Se.      Daniel Joseph
Grooms, III, Assistant United States Attorney, Thomas J. Krepp,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

             Froilan Ignacio Manansala seeks to appeal the district

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

Supp.    2011)    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 Manansala has not made the requisite showing.                       Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

We   deny    Manansala’s     motion    for    appointment        of   counsel.       We

dispense     with    oral     argument    because      the       facts    and    legal

                                          2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                           DISMISSED

                                3