US v. Daniel Pineda-Zelaya

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [999378263-2] Originating case number: 7:09-cr-00100-D-5,7:13-cv-00134-D Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999485148]. Mailed to: Daniel Pineda-Zelaya. [14-6805]

Appeal: 14-6805

Doc: 16

Filed: 12/02/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6805

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
DANIEL EDUARDO PINEDA-ZELAYA,
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-00100-D-5; 7:13-cv-00134-D)

Submitted:

November 20, 2014

Decided:

December 2, 2014

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Daniel Eduardo Pineda-Zelaya, Appellant Pro Se.
Michael Gordon
James, Tobin Webb Lathan, Seth Morgan Wood, Ethan A. Ontjes,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-6805

Doc: 16

Filed: 12/02/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Daniel

Eduardo

Pineda-Zelaya

seeks

to

appeal

the

district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255
(2012) motion.
justice

or

The order is 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

Pineda-Zelaya

Accordingly,

we

has

deny

not
his

made

the

requisite

motion

for

a

appealability and dismiss the appeal.

showing.

certificate

of

We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

2

Appeal: 14-6805

Doc: 16

Filed: 12/02/2014

Pg: 3 of 3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3