Donald Mazariegos-Vicente v. Woodson ( 2023 )


Menu:
  • USCA4 Appeal: 23-6030      Doc: 14         Filed: 05/23/2023    Pg: 1 of 2
    UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 23-6030
    DONALD CIPRIANO MAZARIEGOS-VICENTE, a/k/a Donald Cipriano Mazariegos-
    Vincente,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    WOODSON, Warden,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
    Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga, Senior District Judge. (1:22-cv-01369-AJT-IDD)
    Submitted: May 18, 2023                                           Decided: May 23, 2023
    Before NIEMEYER, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Donald Cipriano Mazariegos-Vicente, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    USCA4 Appeal: 23-6030      Doc: 14         Filed: 05/23/2023     Pg: 2 of 2
    PER CURIAM:
    Donald Cipriano Mazariegos-Vicente seeks to appeal the district court’s order
    dismissing his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     petition as an unauthorized, successive § 2254 petition.
    The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of
    appealability. See 
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(1)(A). 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). When, as here, 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. Gonzalez v.
    Thaler, 
    565 U.S. 134
    , 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 
    529 U.S. 473
    , 484 (2000)).
    We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Mazariegos-Vicente
    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 this court and argument would
    not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 23-6030

Filed Date: 5/23/2023

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 5/24/2023