Court Opinion

ID: 2658473
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-03-28 18:55:24.267911+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:16:28.370838
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 13-7891

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

FERNANDO BARAJAS, a/k/a Spike,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg.    Glen E. Conrad, Chief
District Judge.    (5:07-cr-00011-GEC-RSB-1; 5:13-cv-80574-GEC-
RSB)

Submitted:   March 25, 2014                 Decided:   March 28, 2014

Before GREGORY, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Fernando Barajas, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

              Fernando Barajas seeks to appeal the district court’s

orders dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion

and denying his motion for reconsideration.                          The orders are 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 Barajas 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