United States v. Castillo

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6381 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus FRANCISCO CAZAREZ CASTILLO, Defendant - Appellant. No. 07-6547 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus FRANCISCO CAZAREZ CASTILLO, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (6:04-cr-00112-HMH; 6:06-cv-70019-HMH) Submitted: July 24, 2007 Decided: July 30, 2007 Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Francisco Cazarez Castillo, Appellant Pro Se. Regan Alexandra Pendleton, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. - 2 - PER CURIAM: Francisco Cazarez Castillo seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. 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 that Castillo has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Castillo’s motion for a certificate of appealability 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 - 3 -