Court Opinion

ID: 2754603
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-11-24 20:01:08.363472+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:26:17.791723
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 14-6498

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

CYNTHIA DAMARIZ SALAMANCA, a/k/a Alicebeth Nazario, a/k/a
Marisabel Gonzalez,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.    Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:11-cr-00255-HEH-1; 3:13-cv-00118-HEH)

Submitted:   November 20, 2014            Decided:   November 24, 2014

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

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Cynthia Damariz Salamanca, Appellant Pro Se. Erik Sean Siebert,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Cynthia Damariz Salamanca 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. § 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 Salamanca 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

                                             2
presented in the materials before this court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

                                                      DISMISSED

                                  3