US v. Jairton Grandos-Arredondo

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case numbers: 5:03-cr-00014-RLV-1,5:07-cv-00045-RLV. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998491985] [10-7179]

US v. Jairton Grandos-Arredondo

Doc. 0

Case: 10-7179 Document: 8

Date Filed: 12/28/2010

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7179 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JAIRTON AURELIO GRANDOS-ARREDONDO, a/k/a Jair, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (5:03-cr-00014-RLV-1; 5:07-cv00045-RLV) Submitted: December 16, 2010 Decided: December 28, 2010

Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jairton Aurelio Grandos-Arredondo, Appellant Pro Se. Steven R. Kaufman, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 10-7179 Document: 8

Date Filed: 12/28/2010

Page: 2

PER CURIAM: Jairton Grandos-Arredondo seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for

reconsideration of the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion. not appealable unless a circuit justice or The order is issues a

judge

certificate of appealability. Reid v. Angelone, of 369 F.3d

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); 363, will 369 not (4th issue Cir. 2004). "a

A certificate

appealability

absent

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). relief on the merits, that a When the district court denies satisfies would this standard that claims 473, by the is 484

prisoner

demonstrating district debatable

reasonable of v.

jurists the

find

court's or

assessment Slack

constitutional 529 U.S.

wrong.

McDaniel,

(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. at 484-85. that We have independently has reviewed not made

Slack, 529 U.S. the the record and

conclude showing.

Grandos-Arredondo

requisite

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability We dispense with oral argument because 2

and dismiss the appeal.

Case: 10-7179 Document: 8

Date Filed: 12/28/2010

Page: 3

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process. DISMISSED

3