US v. Nathan Silla

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed denying certificate of appealability. Originating case number: 8:11-cr-00157-PWG-1, 8:15-cv-00656-PWG. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999949605]. Mailed to: Nathan Silla. [16-6650]

Appeal: 16-6650

Doc: 17

Filed: 10/18/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6650

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
NATHAN A. SILLA,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Paul W. Grimm, District Judge. (8:11cr-00157-PWG-1; 8:15-cv-00656-PWG)

Submitted:

October 13, 2016

Decided:

October 18, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nathan A. Silla, Appellant Pro Se.
David Ira Salem, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6650

Doc: 17

Filed: 10/18/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Nathan A. Silla 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 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
Silla has not made the requisite showing. *

*

Accordingly, we deny

Specifically, the issues raised in Silla’s informal brief
in this court, which relate to the propriety of the district
court’s acceptance of his guilty plea and the knowing and
voluntary nature of that plea, are substantively distinct from
the ineffective assistance of counsel claims that Silla raised
(Continued)
2

Appeal: 16-6650

a

Doc: 17

certificate

dispense

Filed: 10/18/2016

of

with

contentions

are

Pg: 3 of 3

appealability

oral

argument

adequately

and

dismiss

because

presented

in

the
the

the

appeal.

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

in his § 2255 motion. We decline to consider these newly framed
arguments. See Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir.
1993) (recognizing this court’s well-settled rule that “issues
raised for the first time on appeal generally will not be
considered,” as well as the “very limited circumstances” that
support a deviation from it).

3