US v. David Amezquita-Franco

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case numbers: 3:12-cr-00052-HEH-DJN-1, 3:13-cv-00443-HEH-DJN. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999590410]. Mailed to: Appellant. [15-6327]

Appeal: 15-6327

Doc: 6

Filed: 05/27/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6327

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DAVID AMEZQUITA-FRANCO,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:12-cr-00052-HEH-DJN-1; 3:13-cv-00443-HEH-DJN)

Submitted:

May 21, 2015

Decided:

May 27, 2015

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Amezquita-Franco, Appellant Pro Se.
Stephen David
Schiller, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6327

Doc: 6

Filed: 05/27/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
David Amezquita-Franco seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.

The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues
a

certificate

(2012).

of

appealability.

28

U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1)(B)

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).
relief

on

the

demonstrating
district

merits,
that

court’s

debatable

or

a

When the district court denies

prisoner

reasonable

assessment

wrong.

Slack

satisfies

jurists

this

would

of

the

v.

McDaniel,

standard

find

U.S.

that

the

claims

constitutional
529

by

is

473,

484

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).
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

claim of the denial of a constitutional right.

a

debatable

Slack, 529 U.S.

at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Amezquita-Franco

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

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

2

Appeal: 15-6327

before

Doc: 6

this

Filed: 05/27/2015

court

and

Pg: 3 of 3

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process.
DISMISSED

3