US v. Jonathan Jimenez

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying for certificate of appealability Originating case number: 5:01-cr-30058-SGW-6,5:13-cv-80564-SGW-RSB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999181388]. Mailed to: Jonathan Jimenez. [13-6651]

Appeal: 13-6651

Doc: 8

Filed: 08/27/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6651

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JONATHAN JIMENEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg.
Samuel G. Wilson,
District Judge. (5:01-cr-30058-SGW-6; 5:13-cv-80564-SGW-RSB)

Submitted:

August 22, 2013

Decided:

August 27, 2013

Before MOTZ, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jonathan Jimenez, Appellant Pro Se.
Jeb Thomas Terrien,
Assistant United States Attorney, Harrisonburg, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-6651

Doc: 8

Filed: 08/27/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Jonathan Jimenez seeks to appeal the district court’s
order

dismissing

Supp.

2013)

as

successive

motion.

The

order

his

28

is

U.S.C.A.

not

§ 2255

appealable

(West

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.”
(2006).

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)

When the district court denies relief on the merits, a

prisoner

satisfies

this

jurists

would

reasonable

standard
find

by

that

demonstrating

the

district

that

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).
denies

relief

demonstrate

on

both

procedural

that

the

When the district court

grounds,

dispositive

the

prisoner

procedural

must

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 Jimenez has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
We

dispense

with

oral

argument

2

because

the

facts

and

legal

Appeal: 13-6651

Doc: 8

contentions

Filed: 08/27/2013

are

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3