UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6412
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
PIOQUINTO PENALOZA-BANOS, a/k/a Jose Luis Banos Aydaya,
a/k/a Jose Luis Banos, a/k/a Daniel Banos Andaya, a/k/a
Pioquinto Banos, a/k/a Michael Burciaga, a/k/a Pioquinto
Banos-Andalla,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen,
Jr., District Judge. (1:06-cr-00434-WO-2; 1:08-cv-00534-WO-WWD)
Submitted: June 17, 2010 Decided: June 28, 2010
Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Pioquinto Penaloza-Banos, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Jane
Hairston, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Pioquinto Penaloza-Banos seeks to appeal the district
court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate
judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.
2010) motion, and its subsequent order denying reconsideration.
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). When the district court denies
relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by
demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the
district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is
debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484
(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).
When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the
prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural
ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable
claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S.
at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and
conclude that Penaloza-Banos has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave
to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3