United States v. Feurtado , 232 F. App'x 355 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-8067
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ANTHONY FEURTADO, a/k/a Anthony Greene, a/k/a
Ginzo, a/k/a Gap, a/k/a Pretty Tony, a/k/a
Tony Feurtado, a/k/a Anthony Lamar Brown,
a/k/a Anthony Paul,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Sol Blatt, Jr., Senior District
Judge. (3:96-cr-00325; 3:03-cv-02949-SB)
Submitted: June 13, 2007 Decided: July 10, 2007
Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anthony Feurtado, Appellant Pro Se. Mark C. Moore, Assistant
United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Anthony Feurtado seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and
denying his motion for reconsideration. 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 Feurtado has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
appeal. We deny the motion to reconsider the order denying leave
to file a pro se supplemental brief. 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 -