United States v. Renato Torres-Eguino , 684 F. App'x 303 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-7498
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
RENATO TORRES-EGUINO,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Greenville. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (4:11-cr-00107-FL-2; 4:13-cv-00153-
FL)
Submitted: March 30, 2017 Decided: April 5, 2017
Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Renato Torres-Eguino, Appellant Pro Se. Shailika S. Kotiya, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina; Glenn Perry, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Renato Torres-Eguino seeks to appeal the district court’s orders accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge, denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012)
motion, and denying a certificate of appealability. The orders are 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 Torres-Eguino 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