United States v. Barzola ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7494
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JOSE MANUEL BARZOLA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
Judge. (CR-03-523; CA-04-179-1)
Submitted: February 23, 2006 Decided: March 2, 2006
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jose Manuel Barzola, Appellant Pro Se. Sonya LaGene Sacks, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Jose Manuel Barzola seeks to appeal from 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
the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is
debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by
the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v.
Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (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 Barzola
has not made the requisite showing. We decline to consider the
claims that Barzola asserts for the first time on appeal. See
Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993).
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 -