US v. Mark Fiel

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999612519-2] Originating case number: 3:10-cr-00170-HEH-6,3:13-cv-00526-HEH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999680241].. [15-6547]

Appeal: 15-6547

Doc: 19

Filed: 10/19/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6547

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MARK JASON FIEL, a/k/a Jason,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:10-cr-00170-HEH-6; 3:13-cv-00526-HEH)

Submitted:

October 15, 2015

Decided:

October 19, 2015

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark Jason Fiel,
Assistant United
Appellee.

Appellant Pro Se.
Peter Sinclair Duffey,
States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6547

Doc: 19

Filed: 10/19/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Mark Jason Fiel seeks to appeal the district court’s orders
denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.

The order

are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability.
A

certificate

of

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).

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
Fiel has not made the requisite showing.
leave

to

proceed

in

forma

pauperis,

appealability, and dismiss the appeal.

2

Accordingly, we deny

deny

a

certificate

of

We dispense with oral

Appeal: 15-6547

Doc: 19

Filed: 10/19/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

3