Court Opinion

ID: 9961892
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-20 21:00:37.480333+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:10.547649
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7164      Doc: 7        Filed: 04/19/2024     Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-7164

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        ALEXANDRA GUZMAN-BEATO, a/k/a Sandra,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, Senior District Judge. (1:19-cr-00218-LO-2; 1:20-cv-00859-
        LO)

        Submitted: March 29, 2024                                           Decided: April 19, 2024

        Before WILKINSON and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Alexandra Guzman-Beato, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7164       Doc: 7         Filed: 04/19/2024      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Alexandra Guzman-Beato seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief

        on her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or

        judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a

        prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the

        district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v.

        Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (2017). 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.

        Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

        484 (2000)).

               We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Guzman-Beato 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

               *
                 We decline to consider Guzman-Beato’s claims that she was unable to effectively
        communicate with her trial counsel and that she required an interpreter, which she raises
        for the first time on appeal. See In re Under Seal, 749 F.3d 276, 285 (4th Cir. 2014). We
        observe, however, that these claims conflict with Guzman-Beato’s sworn statements during
        the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing. See United States v. Lemaster, 403 F.3d 216, 221 (4th Cir.
        2005).

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7164         Doc: 7     Filed: 04/19/2024     Pg: 3 of 3

        are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the

        decisional process.

                                                                                     DISMISSED

                                                    3