US v. Reyes, No. 06-7978 (4th Cir. 2007)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7978 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus EDWIN ARNOLDO REYES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (8:01cr-00533-PJM; 8:05-cv-00255-PJM) Submitted: June 15, 2007 Decided: June 20, 2007 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edwin Arnoldo Reyes, Appellant Pro Se. Deborah A. Johnston, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Edwin Arnoldo Reyes seeks to appeal the district court s order denying relief on his motion for clarification, filed in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) proceeding. unless a circuit appealability. justice or The order is not appealable judge issues a 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). certificate of 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 any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable 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 reviewed the record and conclude that Reyes has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Reyes motion appealability and dismiss the appeal. for a certificate of 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.