United States v. Frank Esquivel , 463 F. App'x 225 ( 2012 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-7251
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
FRANK ESQUIVEL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:05-cr-00026-F-1; 5:08-cv-00281-F)
Submitted: January 31, 2012 Decided: February 3, 2012
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Frank Esquivel, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker,
Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorneys,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Frank Esquivel seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for
reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on
his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2011) 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) (2006).
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) (2006). 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 Esquivel 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
2
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
3