United States of America v. Julio Rodriguez-Diaz

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-6121
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JULIO RODRIGUEZ-DIAZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:19-cr-00111-D-4; 5:23-cv-00141-D)
Submitted: March 11, 2025 Decided: March 13, 2025
Before NIEMEYER, RICHARDSON, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part, dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Julio Rodriguez-Diaz, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Julio Rodriguez-Diaz appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to compel
discovery of grand jury transcripts and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. We
affirm in part and dismiss in part.
We have reviewed the record and Rodriguez-Diaz’s contentions on appeal and
conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Rodriguez-Diaz’s
motion to compel discovery of grand jury transcripts. See Brooks v. Johnson, 924 F.3d
104, 121 (4th Cir. 2019) (providing standard). Accordingly, we affirm this portion of the
district court’s order.
Rodriguez-Diaz may not appeal the district court’s denial of § 2255 relief 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 Rodriguez-
Diaz has not made the requisite showing for a certificate of appealability. Accordingly, we
deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss this portion of the appeal.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
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.
AFFIRMED IN PART,
DISMISSED IN PART

-- 3 of 3 --