United States v. Gomez

163 F. App'x 248

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: January 25, 2006
• Docket: 05-7223
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7223

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ALVIN G. GOMEZ,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CR-00-369-JFM; CA-05-1693-JFM)

Submitted: January 19, 2006 Decided: January 25, 2006

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alvin G. Gomez, Appellant Pro Se. Donna Carol Sanger, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:

Alvin G. Gomez seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. 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 both that the

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by

the district court are also debatable or wrong. 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 Gomez

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

* We recently concluded that the rule announced in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), is not retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review. United States v. Morris, 429 F.3d 65, 72 (4th Cir. 2005).

- 2 -