Court Opinion

ID: 1025085
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-05 06:44:13.458297+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:27:39.058152
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 07-7599

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                  Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

MEBLIN XIOMAR FIGUEROA,

                  Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Lynchburg.    Norman K. Moon, District
Judge. (6:05-cr-00024-nkm; 7:07-cv-00329-nkm)

Submitted:     February 21, 2008           Decided:   February 26, 2008

Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Meblin Xiomar Figueroa, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Ray Wolthuis,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

          Meblin Xiomar Figueroa seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion.

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge

issues a certificate of appealability.        28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)

(2000).   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) (2000).   A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating   that   reasonable   jurists   would   find   that   any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable.     Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).     We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Figueroa has

not made the requisite showing.     Accordingly, we deny his motion

for 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 before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                             DISMISSED

                               - 2 -