United States v. Curbelo

333 F. App'x 799

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6948

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

FRANCISCO CURBELO, a/k/a Murando,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 09-7361

FRANCISCO CURBELO,

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (3:99-cr-00109-GCM-DCK-1; 3:09-cv-00150- GCM)

Submitted: September 29, 2009 Decided: October 8, 2009

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Francisco Curbelo, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 PER CURIAM:

Francisco Curbelo seeks to appeal the district court’s

orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.

2009) motion and denying his motion for bail. The orders are

not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 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. 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 Curbelo has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny certificates of appealability, deny

Curbelo’s motions to appoint counsel and to supplement the

record, and dismiss the appeals. 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