United States v. Constantino Rodriguez-Bailon

Summarize
Check Treatment

Related Cases

                            UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 16-7459


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

CONSTANTINO RODRIGUEZ-BAILON,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.     Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., District Judge. (3:15-cr-00108-RJC-1; 3:16-cv-00652-RJC)


Submitted:   January 31, 2017             Decided:   February 3, 2017


Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Constantino Rodriguez-Bailon, Appellant Pro Se. Kenneth Michel
Smith, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North
Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Constantino Rodriguez-Bailon seeks to appeal the district

court’s    order     denying     relief      on    his    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

Rodriguez-Bailon           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 contentions are adequately presented in the materials



                                             2
before   this   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional

process.

                                                                    DISMISSED




                                     3