US v. Omar Gualtero

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [1000286306-2]. Originating case number: 1:13-cr-00310-LO-2, 1:16-cv-01382-GBL. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000326377]. Mailed to: Omar Gualtero. [17-7456]

Appeal: 17-7456

Doc: 17

Filed: 07/10/2018

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-7456

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
OMAR FABIAN VALDES GUALTERO, a/k/a Gordo,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (1:13-cr-00310-LO-2; 1:16-cv-01382GBL)

Submitted: June 28, 2018

Decided: July 10, 2018

Before DUNCAN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Omar Fabian Valdes Gualtero, Appellant Pro Se. Stacey Kyle Luck, Special Counsel,
Criminal Division/Human Rights & Special Prosecutions, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 17-7456

Doc: 17

Filed: 07/10/2018

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Omar Fabian Valdes Gualtero 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 claim 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 Gualtero has not
made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny Gualtero’s motion for the

appointment of counsel, 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