United States v. Juan Gonzalez De La Mora

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6552 Doc: 12 Filed: 03/31/2025 Pg: 1 of 4 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 23-6552 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JUAN ROBERTO GONZALEZ DE LA MORA, Defendant - Appellant. No. 24-6118 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JUAN ROBERTO GONZALEZ DE LA MORA, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Richard E. Myers, II, Chief District Judge. (5:20-cr-00109-M-1; 5:21-cv-00505- M) Submitted: October 31, 2024 Decided: March 31, 2025 USCA4 Appeal: 23-6552 Doc: 12 Filed: 03/31/2025 Pg: 2 of 4 Before AGEE, RUSHING, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges. No. 23-6552, dismissed; No. 24-6118, affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Juan Roberto Gonzalez De La Mora, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-6552 Doc: 12 Filed: 03/31/2025 Pg: 3 of 4 PER CURIAM: Juan Roberto Gonzalez De La Mora seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (2017). 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. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Gonzalez De La Mora has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal from the district court’s § 2255 order. Gonzalez De La Mora also appeals the district court’s order denying without prejudice his postjudgment motion to amend his § 2255 motion. Because the court denied the motion on procedural grounds unrelated to the merits, a certificate of appealability is not required. See United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 399-400 (4th Cir. 2015). Upon review, we discern no reversible error. We therefore affirm the court’s order. United States v. Gonzalez De La Mora, No. 5:20-cr-00109-M-1 (E.D.N.C. Nov. 29, 2023). 3 USCA4 Appeal: 23-6552 Doc: 12 Filed: 03/31/2025 Pg: 4 of 4 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. No. 23-6552, DISMISSED; No. 24-6118, AFFIRMED 4