US v. Miguel Lara-Alvarez, No. 08-6127 (4th Cir. 2008)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6127 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. MIGUEL ANGEL LARA-ALVAREZ, Defendant Appellant. No. 08-6165 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MIGUEL ANGEL LARA-ALVAREZ, Defendant Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (7:01-cr-00130-F-3; 7:05-cv-00069-F) Submitted: September 30, 2008 Decided: October 24, 2008 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Miguel Angel Lara-Alvarez, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Miguel Angel Lara-Alvarez seeks to appeal the district court s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and denying appealability. his motion for a certificate of An order denying relief in a § 2255 proceeding is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. certificate of 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). appealability will not issue absent A a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. standard § 2253(c)(2) by (2000). demonstrating that A prisoner reasonable satisfies jurists would this 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 Lara-Alvarez has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeals. 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 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.