Opinion
No. 17-7456
07-10-2018
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. OMAR FABIAN VALDES GUALTERO, a/k/a Gordo, Defendant - Appellant.
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UNPUBLISHED
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-01382-GBL) 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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 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