US v. Joseph Michael Guarascio
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:09-cr-00109-D-1,7:11-cv-00044-D Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. . Mailed to: Joseph Michael Guarascio. [15-7578]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
JOSEPH MICHAEL GUARASCIO,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Dever, III,
Chief District Judge. (7:09-cr-00109-D-1; 7:11-cv-00044-D)
December 17, 2015
December 22, 2015
Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joseph Michael Guarascio, Appellant Pro Se. Shailika S. Kotiya,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Ethan A. Ontjes, Assistant
United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on
his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.
The order is not appealable
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right.”
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)
When the district court denies relief on the merits, a
assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong.
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
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
Guarascio has not made the requisite showing.
deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
Pg: 3 of 3
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?