United States v. Sergio Mujica , 545 F. App'x 226 ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-6524
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SERGIO MUJICA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Samuel G. Wilson,
District Judge. (5:09-cr-00015-SGW-RSB-1; 5:12-cv-80452-SGW-
RSB)
Submitted: October 1, 2013 Decided: November 5, 2013
Before KEENAN, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sergio Mujica, Appellant Pro Se. Sharon Burnham, Craig Jon
Jacobsen, I, Assistant United States Attorneys, Roanoke,
Virginia; Grayson A. Hoffman, Assistant United States Attorney,
Harrisonburg, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Sergio Mujica seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2013)
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 Mujica has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We
grant Mujica’s motion to amend or correct the informal brief and
request for a certificate of appealability. We dispense with
2
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
3