US v. Gagik Urutyan, No. 13-6861 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6861 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. GAGIK URUTYAN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (3:07-cr-00041-JRS-1; 3:10-cv-00839-JRS) Submitted: December 19, 2013 Decided: December 23, 2013 Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gagik Urutyan, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Wu, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Gagik Urutyan seeks to seeks to appeal the district court s (West order Supp. dismissing 2013) motion as untimely and his amended 28 motion motion for reconsideration of the order. appealable unless a circuit certificate of appealability. A certificate of U.S.C.A. and § 2255 denying his The orders are not justice or judge issues a 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). relief on the merits, demonstrating district that court s debatable or a When the district court denies prisoner reasonable assessment wrong. satisfies jurists would of the v. McDaniel, Slack this standard find U.S. that the claims constitutional 529 by is 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 claim of the denial of a constitutional right. a debatable Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Urutyan has not made the requisite showing. we deny Urutyan s certificate of motion for appointment appealability, and 2 of dismiss Accordingly, counsel, the deny appeal. a We dispense with contentions are oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts and legal materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
