US v. Jose Pineda-Gomez, No. 13-7052 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7052 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. JOSE PINEDA-GOMEZ, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (2:10-cr-01104-RMG-7; 2:13-cv-00341-RMG) Submitted: November 20, 2013 Decided: December 5, 2013 Before AGEE, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jose Pineda-Gomez, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Thomas Phillips, Stanley D. Ragsdale, Assistant United States Attorneys, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jose Pineda-Gomez seeks to appeal the district court s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2013) motion. judge The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or issues a certificate § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). issue absent a of 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right. appealability. showing of the denial 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). of a 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. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Pineda-Gomez 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 2 before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3