Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06412/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06412-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Pioquinto Penaloza-Banos
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6412

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

PIOQUINTO PENALOZA-BANOS, a/k/a Jose Luis Banos Aydaya, 

a/k/a Jose Luis Banos, a/k/a Daniel Banos Andaya, a/k/a 

Pioquinto Banos, a/k/a Michael Burciaga, a/k/a Pioquinto 

Banos-Andalla,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, 

Jr., District Judge. (1:06-cr-00434-WO-2; 1:08-cv-00534-WO-WWD)

Submitted: June 17, 2010 Decided: June 28, 2010

Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Pioquinto Penaloza-Banos, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Jane 

Hairston, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-6412 Doc: 12 Filed: 06/28/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Pioquinto Penaloza-Banos seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate 

judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 

2010) motion, and its subsequent order denying reconsideration. 

The orders are 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). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and 

conclude that Penaloza-Banos has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave 

to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

Appeal: 10-6412 Doc: 12 Filed: 06/28/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 10-6412 Doc: 12 Filed: 06/28/2010 Pg: 3 of 3