United States v. Antonio Garcia
United States v. Antonio Garcia
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-7025
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ANTONIO TORRES GARCIA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Frank D. Whitney, Chief District Judge. (5:03-cr-00020-FDW-DSC-1; 5:18-cv-00070-FDW)
Submitted: December 20, 2018 Decided: December 27, 2018
Before DIAZ and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jeremy Brian Gordon, JEREMY GORDON, PLLC, Mansfield, Texas, for Appellant.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Antonio Torres Garcia 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 Garcia 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 before this court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
2
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished