US v. Rolando Padron

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying updating certificate of appealability status Originating case number: 4:09-cr-00092-BO-3,4:11-cv-00208-BO Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998934980]. Mailed to: Rolando Vega Padron. [12-6852]

Appeal: 12-6852

Doc: 13

Filed: 09/11/2012

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6852

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROLANDO VEGA PADRON,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Greenville.
Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (4:09-cr-00092-BO-3; 4:11-cv-00208-BO)

Submitted:

August 31, 2012

Decided:

September 11, 2012

Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rolando Vega Padron, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew Fesak, Assistant
United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-6852

Doc: 13

Filed: 09/11/2012

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Rolando Padron seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012)
motion.
judge

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or
issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006).
issue

absent

“a

of

28

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

appealability.

showing

of

the

denial

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006).

of

a

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

Cockrell,

(2000);

(2003).

see

Miller-El

v.

537

U.S.

322,

336-38

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 Padron has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
dispense

with

oral

argument

because

2

the

facts

and

We

legal

Appeal: 12-6852

Doc: 13

Filed: 09/11/2012

Pg: 3 of 3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

3