United States v. Castillo , 234 F. App'x 177 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-6381
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
FRANCISCO CAZAREZ CASTILLO,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 07-6547
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
FRANCISCO CAZAREZ CASTILLO,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (6:04-cr-00112-HMH; 6:06-cv-70019-HMH)
Submitted: July 24, 2007 Decided: July 30, 2007
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Francisco Cazarez Castillo, Appellant Pro Se. Regan Alexandra
Pendleton, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Francisco Cazarez Castillo seeks to appeal the district
court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000)
motion. The orders are not appealable 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
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
any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court
is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by
the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,
537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484
(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have
independently reviewed the record and conclude that Castillo has
not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Castillo’s
motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeals.
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
- 3 -