US v. Cynthia Salamanca

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:11-cr-00255-HEH-1,3:13-cv-00118-HEH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999353226]. [13-7039]

Appeal: 13-7039

Doc: 31

Filed: 05/09/2014

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7039

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CYNTHIA DAMARIZ SALAMANCA, a/k/a Alicebeth Nazario, a/k/a
Marisabel Gonzalez,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:11-cr-00255-HEH-1; 3:13-cv-00118-HEH)

Submitted:

April 29, 2014

Decided:

May 9, 2014

Before KEENAN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jerome Michael Brown, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Appellant.
Erik Sean Siebert, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-7039

Doc: 31

Filed: 05/09/2014

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Cynthia Damariz Salamanca seeks to appeal the district
court’s order dismissing her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion for
lack of jurisdiction.

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.”
(2012).

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)

When the district court denies relief on procedural

grounds, as in the present case, 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 Salamanca has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly,

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

dispense

contentions

with
are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the

facts

and

the

materials

legal
before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

2