United States of America v. Alfredo Leon-Sanchez

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-6500
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ALFREDO LEON-SANCHEZ,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L.
Voorhees, District Judge. (5:06-cv-00146-RLV)
Submitted: September 3, 2009 Decided: September 17, 2009
Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Alfredo Leon-Sanchez, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

PER CURIAM:
Alfredo Leon-Sanchez seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion* for
reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on
his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 2007) motion. The order is not
appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006);
Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004).
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). A prisoner satisfies this standard by
demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any
assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is
debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by
the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v.
Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel,
529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84
(4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and
conclude that Leon-Sanchez has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss
* We note that the motion was a proper Rule 60(b) motion,
not a second or successive § 2255 motion. See Gonzalez v.
Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 530-32 & n.4 (2005); United States v.
Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 206-08 (4th Cir. 2003).
2

-- 2 of 3 --

3
the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --