Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-06778/USCOURTS-ca4-07-06778-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Francisco Alberto Lozano-Torres
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6778

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

FRANCISCO ALBERTO LOZANO-TORRES,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern

District of West Virginia, at Parkersburg. Joseph R. Goodwin,

Chief District Judge. (6:00-cr-00262)

Submitted: October 24, 2007 Decided: November 14, 2007

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Francisco Alberto Lozano-Torres, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-6778 Doc: 16 Filed: 11/14/2007 Pg: 1 of 2
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Francisco Alberto Lozano-Torres seeks to appeal the

district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the

magistrate judge and 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 Lozano-Torres

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: 07-6778 Doc: 16 Filed: 11/14/2007 Pg: 2 of 2