US v. William Lazaro

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [999271437-2] Originating case number: 1:08-cr-00511-WDQ-3,1:13-cv-01037-WDQ Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999325157]. Mailed to: William Lazaro. [14-6010]

Appeal: 14-6010

Doc: 9

Filed: 03/28/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6010

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WILLIAM ORTIZ LAZARO,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
William D. Quarles, Jr., District
Judge. (1:08-cr-00511-WDQ-3; 1:13-cv-01037-WDQ)

Submitted:

March 25, 2014

Decided:

March 28, 2014

Before GREGORY, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Ortiz Lazaro, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Clayton Hanlon,
Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-6010

Doc: 9

Filed: 03/28/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
William

Ortiz

Lazaro

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012)
motion.
judge

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or
issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
issue

absent

“a

of

28

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

appealability.

showing

of

the

denial

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).

of

a

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.

Slack,

529 U.S. at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Lazaro has not made the requisite showing.
deny

Lazaro’s

motion

dismiss the appeal.
facts

and

legal

for

a

certificate

of

Accordingly, we

appealability

and

We dispense with oral argument because the

contentions

are

2

adequately

presented

in

the

Appeal: 14-6010

Doc: 9

materials

before

Filed: 03/28/2014

this

court

Pg: 3 of 3

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional process.

DISMISSED

3