US v. Gagik Urutyan

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999190734-2] Originating case number: 3:07-cr-00041-JRS-1,3:10-cv-00839-JRS Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999264978]. Mailed to: Gagik Urutyan. [13-6861]

Appeal: 13-6861

Doc: 8

Filed: 12/23/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6861

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
GAGIK URUTYAN,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
James R. Spencer, District
Judge. (3:07-cr-00041-JRS-1; 3:10-cv-00839-JRS)

Submitted:

December 19, 2013

Decided:

December 23, 2013

Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gagik Urutyan, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Wu, Assistant United
States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-6861

Doc: 8

Filed: 12/23/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Gagik Urutyan seeks to seeks to appeal the district
court’s
(West

order

Supp.

dismissing

2013)

motion

as

untimely

and

his

amended

28

motion

motion for reconsideration of the order.
appealable

unless

a

circuit

certificate of appealability.
A

certificate

of

U.S.C.A.
and

§ 2255

denying

his

The orders are not

justice

or

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

merits,

demonstrating
district

that

court’s

debatable

or

a

When the district court denies

prisoner

reasonable

assessment

wrong.

satisfies

jurists

would

of

the

v.

McDaniel,

Slack

this

standard

find

U.S.

that

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

claim of the denial of a constitutional right.

a

debatable

Slack, 529 U.S.

at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Urutyan has not made the requisite showing.
we

deny

Urutyan’s

certificate

of

motion

for

appointment

appealability,

and
2

of

dismiss

Accordingly,

counsel,
the

deny

appeal.

a
We

Appeal: 13-6861

Doc: 8

dispense

Filed: 12/23/2013

with

contentions

are

oral

argument

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3