US v. Robert Martinez

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying for certificate of appealability. Originating case number: 4:13-cr-00445-RBH-1,4:16-cv-01923-RBH. Copies to all parties and the district court. [1000179181]. Mailed to: Robert Martinez. [17-6890]

Appeal: 17-6890

Doc: 8

Filed: 10/24/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6890

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROBERT ANTHONY MARTINEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (4:13-cr-00445-RBH-1; 4:16-cv-01923RBH)

Submitted: October 19, 2017

Decided: October 24, 2017

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Anthony Martinez, Appellant Pro Se. Arthur Bradley Parham, Assistant United
States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 17-6890

Doc: 8

Filed: 10/24/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Robert Anthony Martinez 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. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A
certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). 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 (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 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 Martinez has not
made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 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 before this court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

2