United States v. Lopez , 115 F. App'x 150 ( 2004 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 04-7344
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    ALEJANDRO GUERRERO LOPEZ,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District
    Judge. (CR-01-30003; CA-03-715)
    Submitted:   December 9, 2004          Decided:     December 16, 2004
    Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Alejandro Guerrero Lopez, Appellant Pro Se. William Frederick
    Gould, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville,
    Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Alejandro Guerrero Lopez seeks to appeal the district
    court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     (2000).      The order is 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
    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   Lopez   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: 04-7344

Citation Numbers: 115 F. App'x 150

Filed Date: 12/16/2004

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021