US v. Andres Torriente

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying for certificate of appealability Originating case number: 7:07-cr-01363-TMC-2 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998899920]. Mailed to: Andres W. Torriente. [12-6306]

Appeal: 12-6306

Doc: 10

Filed: 07/23/2012

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6306

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ANDRES WILFREDO TORRIENTE,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg.
Timothy M. Cain, District
Judge. (7:07-cr-01363-TMC-2)

Submitted:

July 19, 2012

Decided:

July 23, 2012

Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Andres Wilfredo Torriente, Appellant Pro Se. Leesa Washington,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-6306

Doc: 10

Filed: 07/23/2012

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Andres Wilfredo Torriente seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West
Supp.

2012)

motion.

The

order

is

not

appealable

unless

a

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
28

U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1)(B)

(2006).

A

certificate

of

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right.”
(2006).

When the district court denies relief on the merits, a

prisoner

satisfies

this

reasonable

jurists

would

assessment

of

constitutional

wrong.

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)

the

standard
find

by

that

demonstrating

the

claims

district
is

that

court’s

debatable

or

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 Torriente has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly,

we deny Torriente’s motion for 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: 12-6306

Doc: 10

materials

before

Filed: 07/23/2012

the

court

Pg: 3 of 3

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional process.

DISMISSED

3