US v. Daniel Pineda-Zelaya, No. 14-6805 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6805 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. DANIEL EDUARDO PINEDA-ZELAYA, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Dever, III, Chief District Judge. (7:09-cr-00100-D-5; 7:13-cv-00134-D) Submitted: November 20, 2014 Decided: December 2, 2014 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Daniel Eduardo Pineda-Zelaya, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Gordon James, Tobin Webb Lathan, Seth Morgan Wood, Ethan A. Ontjes, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Daniel Eduardo Pineda-Zelaya seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. justice or The order is not appealable unless a circuit judge issues a certificate U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). of 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 Pineda-Zelaya Accordingly, we has deny not his made the requisite motion for a appealability and dismiss the appeal. showing. certificate of We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 2 presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3