Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-06772/USCOURTS-ca4-07-06772-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Daniel Sanchez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6772

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

DANIEL SANCHEZ,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior

District Judge. (2:03-CR-184-RGD-FBS; 2:07-cv-131)

Submitted: October 26, 2007 Decided: November 16, 2007

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Daniel Sanchez, Appellant Pro Se. William David Muhr, Assistant

United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-6772 Doc: 19 Filed: 11/16/2007 Pg: 1 of 2
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Daniel Sanchez seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on 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 Sanchez has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. We grant Sanchez’s motion to

seal medical record exhibits and deny his motion to expand the

certificate of appealability. 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

Appeal: 07-6772 Doc: 19 Filed: 11/16/2007 Pg: 2 of 2