United States v. Toro

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
United States v. Toro, 158 F. App'x 502 (4th Cir. 2005)

United States v. Toro

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6345

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

EPIFANIO TORO, a/k/a Joseph Hernandez, a/k/a Shorty, a/k/a Carlos Luis Delgado,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief District Judge. (CR-02-154; CA-04-687-3)

Submitted: December 22, 2005 Decided: December 29, 2005

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Epifanio Toro, Appellant Pro Se. Robert E. Trono, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Epifanio Toro seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his motion filed under

28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000).

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, 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 Toro 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Unpublished