United States v. Mario Benitez-Pineda ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 18-6509
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    MARIO BENITEZ-PINEDA, a/k/a Cuzuco, a/k/a Chaparro,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
    Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District Judge. (1:12-cr-00273-LO-1; 1:16-cv-00565-LO)
    Submitted: October 9, 2018                                  Decided: November 26, 2018
    Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Mario Benitez-Pineda, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Mario Benitez-Pineda seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying as
    untimely 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 also
    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 Benitez-Pineda 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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 18-6509

Filed Date: 11/26/2018

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/26/2018