United States v. Feurtado

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-8067

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ANTHONY FEURTADO, a/k/a Anthony Greene, a/k/a
Ginzo, a/k/a Gap, a/k/a Pretty Tony, a/k/a
Tony Feurtado, a/k/a Anthony Lamar Brown,
a/k/a Anthony Paul,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Sol Blatt, Jr., Senior District
Judge. (3:96-cr-00325; 3:03-cv-02949-SB)

Submitted: June 13, 2007 Decided: July 10, 2007

Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Feurtado, Appellant Pro Se. Mark C. Moore, Assistant
United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Anthony Feurtado seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and

denying his motion for reconsideration. The orders are 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 Feurtado has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. We deny the motion to reconsider the order denying leave

to file a pro se supplemental brief. 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 -