Filed: Jul. 16, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6277 MANOLO ALEGRIA-SANCHEZ, Petitioner – Appellant, v. J. HAYNES, Respondent – Appellee, and GARY LOCKLEAR, Judge, Respondent. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:08-hc-02133-D) Submitted: May 21, 2010 Decided: July 16, 2010 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6277 MANOLO ALEGRIA-SANCHEZ, Petitioner – Appellant, v. J. HAYNES, Respondent – Appellee, and GARY LOCKLEAR, Judge, Respondent. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:08-hc-02133-D) Submitted: May 21, 2010 Decided: July 16, 2010 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6277
MANOLO ALEGRIA-SANCHEZ,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
J. HAYNES,
Respondent – Appellee,
and
GARY LOCKLEAR, Judge,
Respondent.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III,
District Judge. (5:08-hc-02133-D)
Submitted: May 21, 2010 Decided: July 16, 2010
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Manolo Alegria-Sanchez, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Carla Hollis,
Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Manolo Alegria-Sanchez seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)
petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice
or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (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). 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. See 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
Alegria-Sanchez 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