US v. Meblin Figueroa, No. 14-6718 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6718 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MEBLIN XIOMAR FIGUEROA, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Lynchburg. Norman K. Moon, Senior District Judge. (6:05-cr-00024-NKM-1; 6:14-cv-80720-NKM-RSB) Submitted: July 29, 2014 Decided: August 1, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Meblin Xiomar Figueroa, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Ray Wolthuis, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Meblin Xiomar Figueroa seeks to appeal the district court s order construing his filing as an unauthorized, successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and dismissing it on that basis. justice or The judge order issues is a not appealable certificate U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). of unless a circuit appealability. 28 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) (2012). 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 Figueroa has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument 2 because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 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.
