US v. Gallarza, No. 05-7255 (4th Cir. 2006)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7255 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus EDWARD GALLARZA, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (CR-01-58; CA-05-84) Submitted: December 22, 2005 Decided: January 3, 2006 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edward Gallarza, Appellant Pro Se. Ray B. Fitzgerald, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Edward Gallarza seeks to appeal the district court s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). judge The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(l) (2000). 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) (2000). 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, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Gallarza has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Gallarza s motions for 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED - 2 -

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.