United States v. Mangual

432 F. App'x 257

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-7513

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

LUIS FELIPE MANGUAL, SR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:04- cr-00235-RWT-25; 8:08-cv-02657-RWT)

Submitted: May 26, 2011 Decided: May 31, 2011

Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Luis Felipe Mangual, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Deborah A. Johnston, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Luis Felipe Mangual, Sr., seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West

Supp. 2010) 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) (2006). 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)

(2006). 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

Mangual 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

2 before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED