Court Opinion

ID: 4197309
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-08-18 19:01:11.5017+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:47:30.310130
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 17-6589

ELEANOR JANET ELGUERA-STINNETT,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

STACEY A. KINCAID, Fairfax County Sheriff,

                    Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District Judge. (1:16-cv-01402-LO-IDD)

Submitted: July 27, 2017                                          Decided: August 18, 2017

Before TRAXLER and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eleanor Janet Elguera-Stinnett, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Eleanor Janet Elguera-Stinnett seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying

her Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district court’s order denying

relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A)

(2012); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004).               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

petition 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 Elguera-Stinnett

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

deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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