United States v. Franklin Rios

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7091 Doc: 6 Filed: 07/27/2023 Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-7090

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

FRANKLIN ANTONIO RIOS, a/k/a Frank, a/k/a Frankie,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 22-7091

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:18-cr-00051-D-1; 5:22-cv-00060-D)

Submitted: July 25, 2023 Decided: July 27, 2023

Before WYNN and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge. USCA4 Appeal: 22-7091 Doc: 6 Filed: 07/27/2023 Pg: 2 of 4

Dismissed in part, affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Franklin Antonio Rios, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 22-7091 Doc: 6 Filed: 07/27/2023 Pg: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:

Franklin Antonio Rios seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his

28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate

release. The court’s order denying relief on Rios’ 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion is not

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). 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). When the district

court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that

reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims

debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (2017). 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. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

Limiting our review of the record to the issues raised in Rios’ informal brief, we

conclude that Rios has not made the requisite showing. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); see also

Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important

document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that

brief.”). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal of the

district court’s denial of § 2255 relief.

The district court also denied, in the same order, Rios’ motion for compassionate

release. Rios does not challenge that decision on appeal, and he has thus forfeited review

3 USCA4 Appeal: 22-7091 Doc: 6 Filed: 07/27/2023 Pg: 4 of 4

of that decision. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); see also Jackson, 775 F.3d at 177. We therefore

affirm the district court’s order insofar as it denied compassionate release.

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 IN PART, AFFIRMED IN PART