Filed: Jun. 19, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6218 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JAVIER LEDEZMA GONZALEZ, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (5:05-cr-00007-5; 7:06-cv-00699) Submitted: May 21, 2007 Decided: June 19, 2007 Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6218 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JAVIER LEDEZMA GONZALEZ, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (5:05-cr-00007-5; 7:06-cv-00699) Submitted: May 21, 2007 Decided: June 19, 2007 Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam o..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-6218
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JAVIER LEDEZMA GONZALEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District
Judge. (5:05-cr-00007-5; 7:06-cv-00699)
Submitted: May 21, 2007 Decided: June 19, 2007
Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Javier Ledezma Gonzalez, Appellant Pro Se. Ray Burton Fitzgerald,
Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Javier Ledezma Gonzalez seeks to appeal the district
court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion as
untimely. 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 Gonzalez has
not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate
of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We further deny
Gonzalez’s “Motion to Extend Time For Filing a Motion Under 28
§ 2255.” 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 -