US v. David Amezquita-Franco

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

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UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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