United States v. Guarascio ( 2010 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-7541
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
LOUIS ANDREW GUARASCIO,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:04-cr-00045-F-2; 5:08-cv-00144-F)
Submitted: August 19, 2010 Decided: August 26, 2010
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis Andrew Guarascio, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-
Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Louis Andrew Guarascio seeks to appeal the district
court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255(West Supp. 2010) motion and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)
motion. These orders are 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). When the
district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies
this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would
find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional
claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,
484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38
(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural
grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive
procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a
debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack,
529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record
and conclude that Guarascio has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss
the appeal. We also deny Guarascio’s motions for appointment of
counsel, for a transcript at government expense, and Guarascio’s
2
amended motion to amend his informal brief. We deny as moot
Guarascio’s motion to withdraw the amended motion.
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
3