Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 8 views

    United States v. Juan Aguirre, 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Juan Solis Aguirre's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his sentence. The court determined that Aguirre did not make a substantial showing that he was denied a constitutional right, as required to issue a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The court independently reviewed the record and concluded that Aguirre did not demonstrate that the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims was debatable or wrong. Therefore, the court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    United States v. Juan Aguirre, 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    8 views3 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Juan Solis Aguirre's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his sentence. The court determined that Aguirre did not make a substantial showing that he was denied a constitutional right, as required to issue a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The court independently reviewed the record and concluded that Aguirre did not demonstrate that the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims was debatable or wrong. Therefore, the court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2013-03-01 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 12-7929

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Juan Solis Aguirre's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his sentence. The court determined that Aguirre did not make a substantial showing that he was denied a constitutional right, as required to issue a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The court independently reviewed the record and concluded that Aguirre did not demonstrate that the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims was debatable or wrong. Therefore, the court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    8 views3 pages

    United States v. Juan Aguirre, 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Juan Solis Aguirre's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his sentence. The court determined that Aguirre did not make a substantial showing that he was denied a constitutional right, as required to issue a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The court independently reviewed the record and concluded that Aguirre did not demonstrate that the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims was debatable or wrong. Therefore, the court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 12-7929

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    JUAN SOLIS AGUIRRE,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Statesville.
    Richard L.
    Voorhees, District Judge.
    (5:10-cr-00005-RLV-DCK-7; 5:12-cv00098-RLV)

    Submitted:

    February 26, 2013

    Decided: March 1, 2013

    Before MOTZ, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Juan Solis Aguirre, Appellant Pro Se.


    Thomas Richard Ascik,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina,
    Steven R. Kaufman, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte,
    North Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Juan

    Solis

    Aguirre

    seeks

    to

    appeal

    the

    district

    courts order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 (West


    Supp.

    2012)

    motion.

    The

    order

    is

    not

    appealable

    unless

    circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.


    28

    U.S.C.

    2253(c)(1)(B)

    (2006).

    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

    courts

    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 Aguirre 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

    materials

    before

    this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

    DISMISSED

    You might also like