United States of America v. Gerard Montero Felder, a/k/a Baby, a/k/a Little Baby

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-6217
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
GERARD MONTERO FELDER, a/k/a Baby, a/k/a Little Baby,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina,
at Statesville. Frank D. Whitney, Chief District Judge. (5:06-cr-00022-FDW-DSC-2;
5:17-cv-00105-FDW)
Submitted: June 14, 2018 Decided: June 19, 2018
Before TRAXLER, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gerard Montero Felder, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Gerard Montero Felder seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his
motion to appoint counsel and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as
successive and unauthorized. 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 Felder 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 of 2 --