US v. Francisco Curbelo

Filing 920091008

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. FRANCISCO CURBELO, Defendant - Appellant.

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-00150GCM)

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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. not appealable unless a circuit justice or

The orders are judge issues a A "a

certificate of appealability. certificate of appealability

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). will not issue absent

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. by § 2253(c)(2) (2006). that A prisoner satisfies would this find

standard

demonstrating

reasonable

jurists

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). that We have independently has not made reviewed the of and the record and

conclude

Curbelo we deny to

requisite

showing. deny the

Accordingly, Curbelo's

certificates appoint counsel

appealability, to supplement

motions

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 3