US v. Juan Alomia-Torre

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying for certificate of appealability Originating case number: 3:97-cr-00040-FDW-2,3:13-cv-00422-FDW Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999303126]. Mailed to: Juan Alomia-Torres. [13-7485]

Appeal: 13-7485

Doc: 8

Filed: 02/25/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7485

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JUAN BAUTISTA ALOMIA-TORRES, a/k/a Juan Baustista-Alomia,
a/k/a Luis Antonio Torres, a/k/a Edward Martinez, a/k/a Luis
Alfredo Martinez, a/k/a John the Jamaican, a/k/a John,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
Frank D. Whitney,
Chief District Judge. (3:97-cr-00040-FDW-2; 3:13-cv-00422-FDW)

Submitted:

February 20, 2014

Decided:

February 25, 2014

Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Juan Bautista Alomia-Torres, Appellant Pro se.
Michael E.
Savage, Jennifer A. Youngs, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-7485

Doc: 8

Filed: 02/25/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Juan

Bautista

Alomia-Torres

seeks

to

appeal

the

district court’s order treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion
as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, and dismissing
it on that basis.
motion

for

unless

a

He also seeks to appeal the order denying his

reconsideration.

circuit

appealability.

justice

The

or

orders

judge

are

issues

a

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).

not

appealable

certificate

of

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 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

both

on

procedural

that

the

When the district court

grounds,

dispositive

the

prisoner

procedural

ruling

must
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

Alomia-Torres

has

not

made

the

requisite

showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss
the appeal.
2

Appeal: 13-7485

Doc: 8

Filed: 02/25/2014

Additionally,

we

Pg: 3 of 3

construe

Alomia-Torres’

notice

of

appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or
successive § 2255 motion.

United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d

200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003).

In order to obtain authorization to

file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims
based on either:
(1) newly discovered evidence that . . . would be
sufficient to establish by clear and convincing
evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have
found the movant guilty of the offense; or
(2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive
to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court,
that was previously unavailable.
28

U.S.C.

satisfy

§ 2255(h)

either

of

(2012).
these

Alomia-Torres’

criteria.

claims

Therefore,

do
we

not
deny

authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal
before

contentions
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
DISMISSED

3