USCA4 Appeal: 22-7164 Doc: 7 Filed: 04/19/2024 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-7164

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ALEXANDRA GUZMAN-BEATO, a/k/a Sandra, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, Senior District Judge. (1:19-cr-00218-LO-2; 1:20-cv-00859- LO)

Submitted: March 29, 2024 Decided: April 19, 2024

Before WILKINSON and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alexandra Guzman-Beato, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7164 Doc: 7 Filed: 04/19/2024 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM: Alexandra Guzman-Beato seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). 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 could find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (2017). 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.

Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Guzman-Beato 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

* We decline to consider Guzman-Beato’s claims that she was unable to effectively communicate with her trial counsel and that she required an interpreter, which she raises for the first time on appeal. See In re Under Seal, 749 F.3d 276, 285 (4th Cir. 2014). We observe, however, that these claims conflict with Guzman-Beato’s sworn statements during the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing. See United States v. Lemaster, 403 F.3d 216, 221 (4th Cir. 2005).

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7164 Doc: 7 Filed: 04/19/2024 Pg: 3 of 3

are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED