US v. Enrique Sardinetas-Sanchez

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case numbers: 7:07-cr-00030-gec-6,7:10-cv-80245-gec-mfu. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998580037] Mailed to: Enrique Sardinetas-Sanchez. [10-7626]

Appeal: 10-7626

Document: 8

Date Filed: 05/02/2011

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-7626

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ENRIQUE SARDINETAS-SANCHEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
Glen E. Conrad, Chief
District Judge. (7:07-cr-00030-gec-6; 7:10-cv-80245-gec-mfu)

Submitted:

April 28, 2011

Decided:

May 2, 2011

Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Enrique Sardinetas-Sanchez, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Andrew
Bassford, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-7626

Document: 8

Date Filed: 05/02/2011

Page: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Enrique

Sardinetas-Sanchez

seeks

to

appeal

the

district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255
(West Supp. 2010) motion.

The order is 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

Cockrell,

(2000);

(2003).

see

Miller-El

v.

537

U.S.

322,

336-38

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.
529 U.S. at 484-85.

Slack,

We have independently reviewed the record

and conclude that Sardinetas-Sanchez has not made the requisite
showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability

and dismiss the appeal.

We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

2

Appeal: 10-7626

Document: 8

materials

before

Date Filed: 05/02/2011

the

court

and

Page: 3 of 3

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional process.

DISMISSED

3