US v. Gonzales March

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999949989-2] Originating case number: 3:08-cr-00590-CMC-6 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000016601]. Mailed to: Gonzales March. [16-7298]

Appeal: 16-7298

Doc: 8

Filed: 02/03/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7298

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
GONZALES MARCH, a/k/a Gun, a/k/a Gon,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia.
Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior
District Judge. (3:08-cr-00590-CMC-6)

Submitted:

January 31, 2017

Decided:

February 3, 2017

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gonzales March, Appellant Pro Se. Jimmie Ewing, Assistant United
States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7298

Doc: 8

Filed: 02/03/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Gonzales March 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

merits,

demonstrating
district

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
March has not made the requisite showing.
a

certificate

of

appealability

and

Accordingly, we deny
March’s

motion

for

appointment of counsel and dismiss the appeal.

We dispense with

oral

contentions

argument

because

the

facts

2

and

legal

are

Appeal: 16-7298

Doc: 8

adequately

Filed: 02/03/2017

presented

in

the

Pg: 3 of 3

materials

before

this

court

and

argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

3