Opinion
No. 12-7694
04-01-2013
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LUIS PEREZ, a/k/a Luis Quilson, Defendant - Appellant.
Luis Perez, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Thomas Camilletti, Thomas Oliver Mucklow, Assistant United States Attorneys, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey, Chief District Judge. (3:04-cr-00057-JPB-DJJ-1; 3:11-cv-00056-JPB) Before NIEMEYER, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Luis Perez, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Thomas Camilletti, Thomas Oliver Mucklow, Assistant United States Attorneys, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Luis Perez seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion for a certificate of appealability with respect to his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 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) (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 Perez 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