US v. Michael Saquella, No. 13-6847 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6847 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MICHAEL RALPH SAQUELLA, a/k/a Michael Paloma, a/k/a Michael Blake, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:07-cr-00305-LMB-1) Submitted: August 29, 2013 Decided: September 4, 2013 Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Ralph Saquella, Appellant Pro Se. Patrick Friel Stokes, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, DC, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Michael order Ralph dismissing as Saquella unauthorized § 2255 (West Supp. 2013) motion. unless a circuit appealability. appeals justice or his the district successive 28 court s U.S.C.A. The order is not appealable judge issues a certificate 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). of A certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. (2006). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this jurists would reasonable standard find by that demonstrating the district that 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). denies relief demonstrate both on procedural that the When the district court grounds, dispositive the prisoner procedural must ruling is debatable, and that the petition 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 Saquella has not made the requisite showing. we deny Saquella s motion for leave to Accordingly, proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. 2 We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions this 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.
