United States v. Padilla-Hernandez , 84 F. App'x 283 ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 03-7085
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    JUAN MANUEL PADILLA-HERNANDEZ, a/k/a Francisco
    Fonceca-Ballesteros, a/k/a Manuel Padilla
    Hernandez, a/k/a Fonceca,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
    District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Frank W. Bullock, Jr.,
    District Judge. (CR-98-136)
    Submitted:   November 21, 2003         Decided:     December 22, 2003
    Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Juan Manuel Padilla-Hernandez, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Francis
    Joseph, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North
    Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Juan Manuel Padilla-Hernandez seeks to appeal the district
    court’s order adopting the orders of the magistrate judge and
    dismissing his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     (2000) motion without prejudice.
    Padilla-Hernandez cannot appeal this order unless a circuit judge
    or justice issues a certificate of appealability, and 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 habeas appellant meets 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
    ,     , 
    123 S. Ct. 1029
    , 1039 (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
    Padilla-Hernandez has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly,
    we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.           We
    grant   Padilla-Hernandez   leave   to   proceed   on   appeal   in   forma
    pauperis and 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: 03-7085

Citation Numbers: 84 F. App'x 283

Judges: Widener, Williams, Traxler

Filed Date: 12/22/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024