Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07837/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07837-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Hector Lopez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7837

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

HECTOR LOPEZ,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. 

(6:06-cr-00503-HFF-1; 6:06-cv-70016-HFF; 6:09-cv-70004-HFF)

Submitted: March 16, 2010 Decided: March 22, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Hector Lopez, Appellant Pro Se. William Jacob Watkins, Jr., 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South 

Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 09-7837 Doc: 12 Filed: 03/22/2010 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Hector Lopez seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order dismissing as untimely 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). 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 Lopez 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

Appeal: 09-7837 Doc: 12 Filed: 03/22/2010 Pg: 2 of 2