Court Opinion

ID: 2647332
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-12-23 20:18:27.84495+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:06:54.151426
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 13-7265

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                      Plaintiff – Appellee,

          v.

ANTONIO MARCIAL NAVARETTE,

                      Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.   W. Earl Britt, Senior
District Judge. (5:10-cr-00139-BR-1; 5:12-cv-00773-BR)

Submitted:   December 19, 2013             Decided:   December 23, 2013

Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Antonio Marcial Navarette, Appellant Pro Se. Shailika K. Shah,
Denise Walker, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Antonio Marcial Navarette seeks to appeal the district

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

Supp. 2013) motion and denying 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) (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 Navarette has not made the requisite showing.                               Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

We    dispense      with     oral   argument        because        the   facts       and     legal

                                               2
contentions   are   adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                               DISMISSED

                                   3