Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-08-07663/USCOURTS-ca4-08-07663-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jose Elmer Chavez Benitez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-7663

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff – Appellee, 

 v. 

JOSE ELMER CHAVEZ BENITEZ, 

 Defendant – Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, 

District Judge. (1:04-cr-00006-LMB-1; 1:08-cv-586) 

Submitted: October 14, 2008 Decided: October 20, 2008 

Before KING, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Jose Elmer Chavez Benitez, Appellant Pro Se. Rebeca Hidalgo 

Bellows, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, 

for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

Appeal: 08-7663 Doc: 6 Filed: 10/20/2008 Pg: 1 of 2
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Jose Elmer Chavez Benitez 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 Benitez has 

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Benitez’s 

motion for 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: 08-7663 Doc: 6 Filed: 10/20/2008 Pg: 2 of 2