United States v. Lopez

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
United States v. Lopez, 115 F. App'x 150 (4th Cir. 2004)

United States v. Lopez

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7344

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ALEJANDRO GUERRERO LOPEZ,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (CR-01-30003; CA-03-715)

Submitted: December 9, 2004 Decided: December 16, 2004

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alejandro Guerrero Lopez, Appellant Pro Se. William Frederick Gould, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:

Alejandro Guerrero Lopez seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under

28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000). The order is 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

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, 336

(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 Lopez 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 -

Reference

Status
Unpublished