US v. Alejandro Reyes, No. 18-6443 (4th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-6443 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ALEJANDRO REYES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, District Judge. (3:03-cr-00195-MHL-RCY-3; 3:16-cv00379-JRS) Submitted: November 14, 2018 Decided: November 21, 2018 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, MOTZ, Circuit Judge, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alejandro Reyes, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Alejandro Reyes seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on the 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion he filed after obtaining authorization from us to file his successive motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 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 Reyes 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 before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2