United States v. Mercedez-Gonzalez , 210 F. App'x 296 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 06-6683
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    BERNARDO MERCEDEZ-GONZALEZ,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
    District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief
    District Judge. (6:96-cr-00258-JAB)
    Submitted: December 21, 2006                Decided:   December 29, 2006
    Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Bernardo Mercedez-Gonzalez, Appellant Pro Se., Angela Hewlett
    Miller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North
    Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Bernardo Mercedez-Gonzalez seeks to appeal the district
    court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge
    and dismissing as successive his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     (2000) motion.
    The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
    issues a certificate of appealability.        
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(1)
    (2000).   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) (2000).   A prisoner satisfies this standard by
    demonstrating   that   reasonable   jurists   would   find   that   any
    assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is
    debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by
    the district court is likewise debatable.     Miller-El v. Cockrell,
    
    537 U.S. 322
    , 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 
    529 U.S. 473
    , 484
    (2000); Rose v. Lee, 
    252 F.3d 676
    , 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).     We have
    independently reviewed the record and conclude that Mercedez-
    Gonzalez 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 the court and argument
    would not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    - 2 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-6683

Citation Numbers: 210 F. App'x 296

Judges: Niemeyer, Williams, King

Filed Date: 12/29/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024