US v. Joseph Guarascio

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:09-cr-00109-D-1,7:11-cv-00044-D Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999444642]. [14-6435]--[Edited 09/29/2014 by JSN]

Appeal: 14-6435

Doc: 12

Filed: 09/29/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6435

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOSEPH MICHAEL GUARASCIO,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Dever, III,
Chief District Judge. (7:09-cr-00109-D-1; 7:11-cv-00044-D)

Submitted:

September 25, 2014

Decided:

September 29, 2014

Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Mallory Kent, LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM MALLORY KENT,
Jacksonville, Florida; Edwin L. West, III, BROOKS, PIERCE,
MCLENDON, HUMPHREY & LEONARD, LLP, Wilmington, North Carolina,
for Appellant.
Ethan A. Ontjes, Assistant United States
Attorney, Shailika K. Shah, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-6435

Doc: 12

Filed: 09/29/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Joseph Michael Guarascio seeks to appeal the district
court’s orders rejecting the three grounds for the ineffective
assistance of claim Guarascio raised in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255
(2012) motion.
justice

or

The orders are not appealable unless a circuit

judge

issues

a

certificate

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).

of

appealability.

28

A certificate of appealability

will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right.”

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).

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 Guarascio 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: 14-6435

Doc: 12

contentions

are

Filed: 09/29/2014

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3