Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Cirilo Mata-Rosales, 15-6460 (2015)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 15-6460 Visitors: 36
Filed: Aug. 31, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6460 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CIRILO MATA-ROSALES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:11-cr-00079-JAB-1; 1:13-cv-00447-JAB- LPA) Submitted: August 27, 2015 Decided: August 31, 2015 Before GREGORY, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per cu
More
                               UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 15-6460


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

CIRILO MATA-ROSALES,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (1:11-cr-00079-JAB-1; 1:13-cv-00447-JAB-
LPA)


Submitted:   August 27, 2015                 Decided:   August 31, 2015


Before GREGORY, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Cirilo Mata-Rosales, Appellant Pro Se. Arnold L. Husser, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Michael Francis Joseph, Angela
Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

      Cirilo Mata-Rosales seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

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

Mata-Rosales 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

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer