US v. David Amezquita-Franco


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

Download PDF
Appeal: 15-6327 Doc: 6 Filed: 05/27/2015 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6327 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DAVID AMEZQUITA-FRANCO, Defendant -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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?