Background
Jose Benjamin Manlapaz, proceeding pro se, sought to appeal an order from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia denying relief on his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
Because an appeal from the denial of a § 2255 motion requires a certificate of appealability, Manlapaz had to make a substantial showing that he had been denied a constitutional right. He also moved for transcripts at government expense and to supplement and correct the record.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Circuit independently reviewed the record and concluded that Manlapaz had not made the showing required for a certificate of appealability. The court explained that, when relief is denied on the merits, a prisoner must show that reasonable jurists could debate whether the district court correctly assessed the constitutional claims. When relief is denied on procedural grounds, the prisoner must show that both the procedural ruling and the underlying constitutional claim are debatable.
The court therefore denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal. It also denied Manlapaz’s motions for government-funded transcripts and to supplement and correct the record. The panel decided the matter without oral argument.
Key Takeaways
- A defendant may not appeal the denial of a § 2255 motion without a certificate of appealability.
- The Fourth Circuit found that Manlapaz failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
- The court denied the related record and transcript motions and dismissed the appeal without oral argument.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the threshold screening function of the certificate-of-appealability requirement in federal post-conviction proceedings. A § 2255 movant must show more than disagreement with the district court; the relevant merits or procedural rulings must be reasonably debatable.
The opinion is unpublished and therefore is not binding precedent in the Fourth Circuit.