United States v. Castro , 355 F. App'x 750 ( 2009 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-7120
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JUAN EVANGELISTA CASTRO,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Samuel G. Wilson,
District Judge. (5:06-cr-00054-sgw-mfu-1; 5:09-cv-80125-sgw-
mfu)
Submitted: October 30, 2009 Decided: December 11, 2009
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Juan Evangelista Castro, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Mitchell
Huber, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville,
Virginia, Rick A. Mountcastle, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, Jeb Thomas Terrien, Assistant
United States Attorney, Harrisonburg, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Juan Evangelista Castro seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255(West Supp. 2009) motion. The order is not appealable unless a
circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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). 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, 484-85 (2000); Rose v. Lee,
252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently
reviewed the record and conclude that Castro 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