US v. Marco Antonio Velez

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:04-cr-00093-TLW-1,4:07-cv-70030-TLW Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998664362]. Mailed to: Marco Velez. [10-7615]

Appeal: 10-7615

Document: 8

Date Filed: 08/26/2011

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-7615

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
MARCO ANTONIO VELEZ,
Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence.
Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(4:04-cr-00093-TLW-1; 4:07-cv-70030-TLW)

Submitted:

May 16, 2011

Decided:

August 26, 2011

Before WILKINSON, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marco Antonio Velez, Appellant Pro Se.
Alfred William Walker
Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-7615

Document: 8

Date Filed: 08/26/2011

Page: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Marco
court’s

order

Antonio
denying

Velez
his

seeks

Fed.

R.

to

appeal

Civ.

P.

the

60(b)

district

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

certificate of appealability.
Reid

v.

Angelone,

A certificate

of

369

justice

or

The order is

judge

issues

a

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006);

F.3d

363,

appealability

369

will

(4th

not

Cir.

issue

2004).

absent

“a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006).
relief

on

the

demonstrating
district
debatable

merits,
that

court’s
or

a

When the district court denies

prisoner

reasonable

assessment

wrong.

satisfies

jurists

would

of

Slack

this

the

v.

McDaniel,

standard

find

that

U.S.

the

claims

constitutional
529

by

is

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

the

484-85.

conclude

We

that

have

Velez

independently
has

not

made

reviewed
the

record

requisite

and

showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss
the appeal.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts
2

Appeal: 10-7615

Document: 8

Date Filed: 08/26/2011

Page: 3 of 3

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before

the

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process.
DISMISSED

3