US v. Norberto Quinone

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [999758927-2] Originating case number: 8:04-cr-00234-RWT-3,8:11-cv-03239-RWT Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999879312]. Mailed to: Norberto Quinones. [16-6238]

Appeal: 16-6238

Doc: 12

Filed: 07/06/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6238

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
NORBERTO QUINONES, a/k/a Jose Rosado, a/k/a “J”,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge.
(8:04-cr-00234-RWT-3; 8:11-cv-03239-RWT)

Submitted:

June 30, 2016

Decided:

July 6, 2016

Before KING, GREGORY, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Norberto Quinones, Appellant Pro Se.
Deborah A. Johnston,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6238

Doc: 12

Filed: 07/06/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Norberto

Quinones

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

court’s

orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and
denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend that
judgment.
justice

The
or

28 U.S.C.

orders

judge

are

issues

§ 2253(c)(1)(B)

not
a

appealable

certificate

(2012).

unless
of

A

a

circuit

appealability.
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
Quinones has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny his motion for 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: 16-6238

before

Doc: 12

this

court

Filed: 07/06/2016

and

Pg: 3 of 3

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process.
DISMISSED

3