United States v. Rico Allen
United States v. Rico Allen
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-7607
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RICO RODRIQUEZ ALLEN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers, District Judge. (3:18-cr-00033-1; 3:19-cv-00546)
Submitted: March 23, 2021 Decided: March 26, 2021
Before THACKER, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Rico Rodriquez Allen, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Rico Rodriquez Allen seeks to appeal the district court’s orders accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Allen’s
28 U.S.C. § 2255motion and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment. The
orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of
appealability. See
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 could find the district court’s assessment
of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis,
137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74(2017). 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. Gonzalez v. Thaler,
565 U.S. 134, 140-41(2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel,
529 U.S. 473, 484(2000)).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Allen has not made
the requisite showing. Allen seeks to challenge the district court’s rejection of his claim
that there was no factual basis to support his
18 U.S.C. § 924(c) conviction, asserting that
there was no evidence that he used a firearm. The material elements of
18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) are (1) using or carrying a firearm (2) during and in relation to a drug trafficking
crime or a crime of violence. United States v. Strayhorn,
743 F.3d 917, 922(4th Cir. 2014).
In the stipulation of facts supporting his guilty plea, Allen admitted that he had
methamphetamine in his car that he intended to distribute, he possessed a firearm for
2 protection while distributing the methamphetamine, and he was sitting on the gun when he
was removed from his car at the time of the arrest. Furthermore, at the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11
hearing, Allen admitted under oath that he had methamphetamine that he intended to
distribute and that he possessed a firearm to protect the drugs. Allen’s possession of the
firearm in his car for protection while selling methamphetamine established that he carried
the firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime. 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
3
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished