United States v. Reymundo Rodriguez

Summarize
Check Treatment

Related Cases

                            UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 16-7519


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

REYMUNDO MONGE RODRIGUEZ,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger,
District Judge. (1:06-cr-00004-MR-1; 1:16-cv-00228-MR)


Submitted:   February 23, 2017            Decided:   February 28, 2017


Before SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Reymundo Monge Rodriguez, Appellant Pro Se.    Jill Westmoreland
Rose, United States Attorney, Michael E. Savage, Assistant
United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina; Amy Elizabeth
Ray,   Assistant  United   States  Attorney,   Asheville,  North
Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Reymundo     Monge       Rodriguez       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 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