Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Toro, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a court case in which Epifanio Toro sought to appeal a district court's denial of relief on his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. A three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, finding that Toro did not make the requisite substantial showing that his constitutional rights were denied, as required to issue a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The panel also dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the materials before the court.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2005-12-29 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 05-6345

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document summarizes a court case in which Epifanio Toro sought to appeal a district court's denial of relief on his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. A three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, finding that Toro did not make the requisite substantial showing that his constitutional rights were denied, as required to issue a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The panel also dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the materials before the court.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    2 views2 pages

    United States v. Toro, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a court case in which Epifanio Toro sought to appeal a district court's denial of relief on his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. A three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, finding that Toro did not make the requisite substantial showing that his constitutional rights were denied, as required to issue a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The panel also dispensed with oral argument, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the materials before the court.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 05-6345

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,


    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    EPIFANIO TORO, a/k/a Joseph Hernandez, a/k/a
    Shorty, a/k/a Carlos Luis Delgado,
    Defendant - Appellant.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond.
    James R. Spencer, Chief
    District Judge. (CR-02-154; CA-04-687-3)

    Submitted:

    December 22, 2005

    Decided: December 29, 2005

    Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Epifanio Toro, Appellant Pro Se. Robert E. Trono, Assistant United


    States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Epifanio Toro seeks to appeal the district courts order
    denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. 2255 (2000).
    An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a 2255
    proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate
    of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of
    appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district
    court

    absent

    substantial

    constitutional right.

    showing

    of

    the

    denial

    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2) (2000).

    of

    A prisoner

    satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists


    would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that
    any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also
    debatable or wrong.

    See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336

    (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee,
    252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).

    We have independently reviewed

    the record and conclude that Toro has not made the requisite
    showing.

    Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

    dismiss the appeal.


    facts

    and

    materials

    legal
    before

    We dispense with oral argument because the

    contentions
    the

    court

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    presented

    would

    not

    in

    the

    aid

    the

    decisional process.

    DISMISSED

    - 2 -

    You might also like