United States of America v. Alvaro Ezequeil Alas, a/k/a Baltimore Alas, a/k/a Alvaro Ezequiel Alas

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-6848
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ALVARO EZEQUEIL ALAS, a/k/a Baltimore Alas, a/k/a Alvaro
Ezequiel Alas,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (6:09-cr-01067-HMH-1; 6:12-cv-01814-HMH)
Submitted: October 9, 2013 Decided: October 29, 2013
Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Alvaro Ezequeil Alas, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Burke Moorman,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Alvaro Ezequeil Alas seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying his motion to reconsider the denial of his
28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2013) 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.”
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
(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 Alas 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

-- 2 of 3 --

3
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --