US v. Ronald Vorel, No. 11-6089 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6089 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RONALD VOREL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge. (1:07-cr-00519-WDQ-1; 1:10-cv-02532-WDQ) Submitted: March 15, 2011 Before MOTZ and Circuit Judge WYNN, Circuit Decided: Judges, and March 21, 2011 HAMILTON, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronald Vorel, Appellant Pro Se. Harry Mason Gruber, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ronald order dismissing Supp. 2010) Vorel as motion. seeks to appeal successive The his order is 28 the district U.S.C.A. not court s § 2255 appealable (West unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (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 Cockrell, (2000); (2003). see Miller-El v. 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 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. 529 U.S. at 484-85. and conclude that Slack, We have independently reviewed the record Vorel has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. Additionally, we construe Vorel s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. See United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 2 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on either: (1) newly discoverable establish by by discovered due diligence, clear and evidence, that convincing would not be evidence previously sufficient that, but to for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense; or (2) a new rule of constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review. § 2255(h). Vorel s criteria. claims do not satisfy 28 U.S.C.A. either of these Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials 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.
