Court Opinion

ID: 1035726
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-31 00:00:52.745697+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:34:50.907248
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 13-6699

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                       Plaintiff – Appellee,

          v.

EDWIN F. ALVANEZ,

                       Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt.    Deborah K. Chasanow, Chief District
Judge. (8:07-cr-00326-DKC-2; 8:11-cv-02892-DKC)

Submitted:   July 25, 2013                     Decided:   July 30, 2013

Before GREGORY, DAVIS, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edwin F. Alvanez, Appellant Pro Se. Stacy Dawson Belf, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland; Elizabeth Dorsey
Collery, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.;
James   Marton   Trusty,   Assistant  United  States   Attorney,
Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

            Edwin F. Alvanez seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.

2013) motion.           The order is not appealable unless a circuit

justice   or     judge    issues    a   certificate         of   appealability.      28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (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 Alvanez 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

                                             2
contentions   are   adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                               DISMISSED

                                   3