Ricardo Garcia v. Leslie Fleming, No. 14-7043 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7043 RICARDO FELIX GARCIA, Petitioner - Appellant, v. LESLIE FLEMING, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., District Judge. (3:13-cv-00680-JAG) Submitted: November 20, 2014 Decided: December 2, 2014 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ricardo Felix Garcia, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Baumgartner, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Elizabeth VIRGINIA, Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ricardo court’s order petition. or judge Felix denying relief seeks on to his 28 appeal U.S.C. the district § 2254 (2012) The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice issues a certificate § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). issue Garcia absent “a appealability. 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right.” of showing of the denial 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). 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 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 Garcia has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Garcia’s motion for a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. dispense with oral argument because 2 the facts and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3