United States v. Jimenez

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7897
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MARINO JIMENEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief
District Judge. (CR-99-113, CA-02-442-3-1)
Submitted: July 24, 2003 Decided: July 29, 2003
Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marino Jimenez, Appellant Pro Se. Douglas Scott Broyles, Assistant
United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Marino Jimenez, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the
district court’s order denying relief on his motions filed under 28
U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). An appeal may not
be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding 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 for claims addressed by a district court 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 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, 1040 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000);
Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S.
941 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Jimenez 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