Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07314/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07314-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alberto Gonzalez-Albarran
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7314

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ALBERTO GONZALEZ-ALBARRAN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.

(4:04-cr-00788-RBH-3; 4:05-cv-2502-RBH)

Submitted: November 15, 2007 Decided: November 27, 2007

Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alberto Gonzalez-Albarran, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker

Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-7314 Doc: 12 Filed: 11/27/2007 Pg: 1 of 2
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Alberto Gonzalez-Albarran 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

Gonzalez-Albarran 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: 07-7314 Doc: 12 Filed: 11/27/2007 Pg: 2 of 2