US v. Alejandro Martinez-Barrera

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case numbers: 5:12-cr-00281-BO-1,5:13-cv-00843-BO. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999457896]. Mailed to: appellant. [14-6844]

Appeal: 14-6844

Doc: 7

Filed: 10/20/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6844

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ALEJANDRO MARTINEZ-BARRERA,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:12-cr-00281-BO-1; 5:13-cv-00843-BO)

Submitted:

October 16, 2014

Decided:

October 20, 2014

Before AGEE, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alejandro
Martinez-Barrera,
Appellant
Pro
Se.
Sebastian
Kielmanovich, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-6844

Doc: 7

Filed: 10/20/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Alejandro

Martinez-Barrera

seeks

to

appeal

the

district court’s orders dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012)
motion and denying his motion to alter or amend that judgment.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).

The orders are not appealable unless

a

judge

circuit

justice

appealability.

or

issues

a

certificate

of

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012); see Reid v.

Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 368-69 (4th Cir. 2004).

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

Martinez-Barrera

has

not

made

the

requisite

showing.

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

We dispense with oral argument because the facts
2

Appeal: 14-6844

Doc: 7

Filed: 10/20/2014

Pg: 3 of 3

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before

this

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process.
DISMISSED

3