US v. Frank Esquivel
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case numbers: 5:05-cr-00026-F-1,5:08-cv-00281-F. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998780112]. Mailed to: Frank Esquivel. [11-7251]
Appeal: 11-7251
Document: 9
Date Filed: 02/03/2012
Page: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 11-7251
Document: 9
Date Filed: 02/03/2012
Page: 2 of 3
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.
not
appealable
unless
a
circuit
certificate of appealability.
A certificate
of
justice
or
The order is
judge
issues
a
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006).
appealability
will
not
issue
absent
“a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006).
relief
on
the
demonstrating
district
debatable
merits,
that
court’s
or
a
When the district court denies
prisoner
reasonable
assessment
wrong.
Slack
satisfies
jurists
this
would
of
the
v.
McDaniel,
standard
find
that
U.S.
the
claims
constitutional
529
by
is
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
the
484-85.
conclude
that
We
have
Esquivel
independently
has
not
reviewed
made
the
record
requisite
and
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
Appeal: 11-7251
before
Document: 9
Date Filed: 02/03/2012
the
and
court
argument
would
Page: 3 of 3
not
aid
the
decisional
process.
DISMISSED
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?