United States v. Sergio Estupinan , 584 F. App'x 118 ( 2014 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6788
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SERGIO ESTUPINAN ESTUPINAN, a/k/a Robert Julio Zavala, a/k/a
The Lawyer,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard,
Senior District Judge. (4:09-cr-00074-H-1; 4:13-cv-00195-H)
Submitted: September 19, 2014 Decided: October 2, 2014
Before KEENAN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sergio Estupinan Estupinan, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-
Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Sergio Estupinan Estupinan seeks to appeal the
district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 (2012) 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) (2012). 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 Estupinan 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
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3