Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-08020/USCOURTS-ca4-09-08020-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Albert Esposito
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-8020

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ALBERT ESPOSITO,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees, 

District Judge. (3:01-cr-00202-RLV-DSC-1; 3:08-cv-00029-RLV)

Submitted: February 25, 2010 Decided: March 4, 2010

Before DUNCAN and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Albert Esposito, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 09-8020 Doc: 9 Filed: 03/04/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Albert Esposito seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for 

reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on 

his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009) motion. The order is 

not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); 

Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). 

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) (2006). 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 Esposito 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

Appeal: 09-8020 Doc: 9 Filed: 03/04/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 09-8020 Doc: 9 Filed: 03/04/2010 Pg: 3 of 3