United States v. Francisco Zavala , 703 F. App'x 198 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-7255
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
FRANCISCO LEOPOLDO ZAVALA, a/k/a Leo, a/k/a Leopoldo Zavala, a/k/a
Francisco Leopoldo Zavala-Umana,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:17-cr-00015-LMB-1; 1:17-cv-
00984-LMB)
Submitted: November 16, 2017 Decided: November 21, 2017
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Francisco Leopoldo Zavala, Appellant Pro Se. David Alexander Peters, Special Assistant
United States Attorney, Mary Katherine Barr Daly, Assistant United States Attorney,
Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Francisco Leopoldo Zavala seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief
on 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 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 Zavala 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