US v. David Amezquita-Franco


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to expedite decision as moot [999980455-2] Originating case number: 3:12-cr-00052-HEH-DJN-1,3:16-cv-00526-HEH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000015680]. Mailed to: D Amezquita Franco. [16-7111]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-7111 Doc: 13 Filed: 02/02/2017 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-7111 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DAVID AMEZQUITA-FRANCO, Defendant -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; 3:16-cv-00526-HEH) Submitted: January 31, 2017 Decided: February 2, 2017 Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, 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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 16-7111 Doc: 13 Filed: 02/02/2017 Pg: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: David Amezquita-Franco seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing motion. judge as successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or issues a certificate § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). issue his absent “a of 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right.” appealability. showing of the denial 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). of a When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 Cockrell, (2000); (2003). see Miller-El v. 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 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 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 Amezquita-Franco Accordingly, we has deny not as made moot the requisite Amezquita-Franco’s showing. motion to expedite, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. legal We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions are adequately 2 presented in the materials Appeal: 16-7111 before Doc: 13 this court Filed: 02/02/2017 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?