Manolo Alegria-Sanchez v. J. Haynes, No. 10-6277 (4th Cir. 2010)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6277 MANOLO ALEGRIA-SANCHEZ, Petitioner Appellant, v. J. HAYNES, Respondent Appellee, and GARY LOCKLEAR, Judge, Respondent. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:08-hc-02133-D) Submitted: May 21, 2010 Decided: July 16, 2010 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Manolo Alegria-Sanchez, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Carla Hollis, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Manolo court s order petition. Alegria-Sanchez denying relief seeks on his to 28 appeal the U.S.C. § 2254 § 2253(c)(1) (2006). absent a constitutional prisoner (2006) The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. issue district A certificate of appealability will not substantial right. satisfies reasonable jurists constitutional See 28 U.S.C. 28 this by U.S.C. find the of the denial § 2253(c)(2) standard would claims showing by that any district of (2006). demonstrating assessment court is a A that of the debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 court is likewise debatable. 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). have independently Alegria-Sanchez reviewed has not the record made the and conclude requisite We that showing. Accordingly, we deny 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.