United States v. Loyola

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6365
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
AUGUSTO LOYOLA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema,
District Judge. (1:05-cr-00521-LMB-1; 1:09-cv-01415-LMB)
Submitted: July 27, 2010 Decided: August 5, 2010
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and KEENAN, Circuit
Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Augusto Loyola, Appellant Pro Se. Dennis Michael Fitzpatrick,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Augusto Loyola seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.
2010) motion and his claim for equitable tolling. The 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) (2006). 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 Loyola has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny Loyola’s motion for a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
2
presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3