United States v. Ricardo Cervantes-Sanchez
United States v. Ricardo Cervantes-Sanchez
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-6887
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RICARDO CERVANTES-SANCHEZ, a/k/a Rica, a/k/a Barbie, a/k/a Adrian Acosta,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Kenneth D. Bell, District Judge. (5:18-cr-00048-KDB-DSC-5; 5:20-cv-00044-KDB)
Submitted: February 1, 2021 Decided: February 25, 2021
Before NIEMEYER, THACKER, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ricardo Cervantes-Sanchez, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Ricardo Cervantes-Sanchez seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief
on his
28 U.S.C. § 2255motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or
judge issues a certificate of appealability.
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). 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). 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 Cervantes-Sanchez
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- Unpublished