Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-08118/USCOURTS-ca4-09-08118-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Francisco Duran Avila
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-8118

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

FRANCISCO DURAN AVILA, a/k/a J. Trinidad Cervantez-R,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., 

Chief District Judge. (1:06-cr-00270-JAB-1; 1:08-00715-JAB-DPD)

Submitted: June 1, 2010 Decided: June 7, 2010

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Francisco Duran Avila, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 09-8118 Doc: 11 Filed: 06/07/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Francisco Duran Avila seeks to appeal the district 

court’s orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate 

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

2009) motion, and denying his motion for 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 Avila 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: 09-8118 Doc: 11 Filed: 06/07/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 09-8118 Doc: 11 Filed: 06/07/2010 Pg: 3 of 3