Case ID: f-appx_97/html/0445-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Danilo MONTOYA, a/k/a Daniel Montoya, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 03-7707.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: May 14, 2004.
    Decided: May 26, 2004.
    Danilo Montoya, Appellant pro se.
    Marvin Jennings Caughman, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina; Arthur Bradley Parham, Office of the United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before TRAXLER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Danilo Montoya previously appealed the district court’s final order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. We denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal. See United States v. Montoya, 69 Cal.App.4th 607, 81 Cal. Rptr.2d 708 (4th Cir.2004) (unpublished). Montoya again appeals from the district court’s denial of his § 2255 motion. Because we have previously determined that Montoya has failed to provide grounds meriting a certificate of appealability, it is the law of the case. Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 815-16, 108 S.Ct. 2166, 100 L.Ed.2d 811 (1988); United States v. Bell, 5 F.3d 64, 66-67 (4th Cir.1993).

Thus, 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