US v. Jose Escobar-Pacheco, No. 08-7909 (4th Cir. 2009)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7909 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. JOSE WILLIAM ESCOBAR-PACHECO, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (7:06-cr-00092-BO-1; 7:08-cv-00031-BO) Submitted: July 23, 2009 Decided: July 27, 2009 Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jose William Escobar-Pacheco, Appellant Pro Se. Edward D. Gray, Steve R. Matheny, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jose William Escobar-Pacheco seeks to appeal the district court s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009) 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). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional prisoner reasonable right. satisfies jurists constitutional 28 U.S.C. this standard would claims by § 2253(c)(2) find the by that district (2006). demonstrating any assessment court is A that of debatable the 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 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently Escobar- reviewed the record and conclude Pacheco has not made the requisite showing. that Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny Escobar-Pacheco s motions to appoint counsel and 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.