US v. Edwin Alvanez, No. 13-6699 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6699 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. EDWIN F. ALVANEZ, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Chief District Judge. (8:07-cr-00326-DKC-2; 8:11-cv-02892-DKC) Submitted: July 25, 2013 Decided: July 30, 2013 Before GREGORY, DAVIS, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edwin F. Alvanez, Appellant Pro Se. Stacy Dawson Belf, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland; Elizabeth Dorsey Collery, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; James Marton Trusty, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Edwin F. Alvanez seeks to appeal the district court s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2013) motion. justice or The order is not appealable unless a circuit judge issues a certificate U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). of appealability. 28 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) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 Cockrell, (2000); (2003). see Miller-El v. 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Alvanez has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument 2 because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3
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.
