US v. Lee Farka

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case numbers: 1:10-cr-00200-LMB-1,1:13-cv-01191-LMB. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999524053]. [14-7390]

Appeal: 14-7390

Doc: 12

Filed: 02/05/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7390

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
LEE BENTLEY FARKAS,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Leonie M. Brinkema,
District Judge. (1:10-cr-00200-LMB-1; 1:13-cv-01191-LMB)

Submitted:

January 30, 2015

Decided:

February 5, 2015

Before MOTZ and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Erica Tamar Dubno, Herald Price Fahringer, FAHRINGER & DUBNO,
New York, New York, for Appellant. Paul Nathanson, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Karen Ledbetter Taylor, Assistant United
States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7390

Doc: 12

Filed: 02/05/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Lee

motion.
judge

Farkas

order

court’s

Bentley
denying

relief

on

to

appeal

28

U.S.C.

his

the

district

§ 2255

(2012)

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or
issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
issue

seeks

absent

“a

of

28

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

appealability.

showing

of

the

denial

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).

of

a

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 Farkas has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
dispense

with

oral

argument

because

2

the

facts

and

We

legal

Appeal: 14-7390

Doc: 12

contentions

are

Filed: 02/05/2015

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3