Court Opinion

ID: 1018177
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 22:15:58.960611+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:57.046563
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 05-7292

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

VICTOR JORDAIN-ORTIZ,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District
Judge. (CR-01-30066; CA-05-343-7)

Submitted: December 22, 2005              Decided:    January 3, 2006

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Victor Jordain-Ortiz, Appellant Pro Se. Ray B. Fitzgerald, Jr.,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

               Victor Jordain-Ortiz, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal

the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000).             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    the     district      court’s     assessment         of     his

constitutional       claims     is   debatable     and    that    any    dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong.     See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).               We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Jordain-Ortiz 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

                                        - 2 -