United States v. Toro , 158 F. App'x 502 ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 05-6345
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    EPIFANIO TORO, a/k/a Joseph Hernandez, a/k/a
    Shorty, a/k/a Carlos Luis Delgado,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond.     James R. Spencer, Chief
    District Judge. (CR-02-154; CA-04-687-3)
    Submitted:   December 22, 2005            Decided: December 29, 2005
    Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Epifanio Toro, Appellant Pro Se. Robert E. Trono, Assistant United
    States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Epifanio Toro seeks to appeal the district court’s order
    denying relief on his motion filed under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     (2000).
    An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255
    proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate
    of appealability. 
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(1) (2000). A certificate of
    appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district
    court   absent     “a    substantial     showing     of     the   denial    of     a
    constitutional right.”         
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(2) (2000).        A prisoner
    satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists
    would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that
    any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also
    debatable or wrong.       See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 
    537 U.S. 322
    , 336
    (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 
    529 U.S. 473
    , 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee,
    
    252 F.3d 676
    , 683 (4th Cir. 2001).             We have independently reviewed
    the record and conclude that Toro 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    the    court   and     argument   would   not    aid     the
    decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    - 2 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-6345

Citation Numbers: 158 F. App'x 502

Filed Date: 12/29/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021