United States v. Ramirez-Leandro , 203 F. App'x 431 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 06-6500
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    MARIO RAMIREZ-LEANDRO,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior
    District Judge. (5:03-cr-00274-H; 5:05-cv-00399-H)
    Submitted:   September 22, 2006           Decided:   October 16, 2006
    Before MICHAEL, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Mario Ramirez-Leandro, Appellant Pro Se. Steve R. Matheny, OFFICE
    OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Mario       Ramirez-Leandro    seeks   to    appeal   the    district
    court’s order dismissing as untimely his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     (2000)
    motion.    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
    any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court
    is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by
    the district court is likewise debatable.               Miller-El v. Cockrell,
    
    537 U.S. 322
    , 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 
    529 U.S. 473
    , 484
    (2000); Rose v. Lee, 
    252 F.3d 676
    , 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).                We have
    independently reviewed the record and conclude that Ramirez-Leandro
    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 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-6500

Citation Numbers: 203 F. App'x 431

Judges: Gregory, King, Michael, Per Curiam

Filed Date: 10/16/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023