United States v. Alejandro Martinez-Barrera

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6844
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ALEJANDRO MARTINEZ-BARRERA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:12-cr-00281-BO-1; 5:13-cv-00843-BO)
Submitted: October 16, 2014 Decided: October 20, 2014
Before AGEE, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Alejandro Martinez-Barrera, Appellant Pro Se. Sebastian
Kielmanovich, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Alejandro Martinez-Barrera seeks to appeal the
district court’s orders dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012)
motion and denying his motion to alter or amend that judgment.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). The orders are not appealable unless
a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of
appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012); see Reid v.
Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 368-69 (4th Cir. 2004). 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 Martinez-Barrera 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
2
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
3