United States v. Luis Renteria ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                                      UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 21-6732
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    LUIS RENTERIA,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
    Wilmington. David A. Faber, Senior District Judge. (7:12-cr-00037-FA-10; 7:18-cv-
    00024-FA)
    Submitted: December 16, 2021                                Decided: December 17, 2021
    Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Luis Renteria, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Luis Renteria seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his
    
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     motions. The order is 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)).
    Limiting our review of the record to the issues raised in Renteria’s informal brief,
    we conclude that Renteria has not made the requisite showing. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); see
    also Jackson v. Lightsey, 
    775 F.3d 170
    , 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an
    important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved
    in that brief.”). 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: 21-6732

Filed Date: 12/17/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/17/2021