Donald Mazariegos-Vicente v. Harold Clarke , 707 F. App'x 144 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-6920
DONALD MAZARIEGOS-VICENTE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD W. CLARKE,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga, District Judge. (1:17-cv-00543-AJT-MSN)
Submitted: November 30, 2017 Decided: December 22, 2017
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and DUNCAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Donald Cipriano Mazariegos-Vicente, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Donald Cipriano Mazariegos-Vicente seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable
unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (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 petition 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 Mazariegos-
Vicente has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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