US v. Jose Benitez, No. 08-7663 (4th Cir. 2008)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7663 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. JOSE ELMER CHAVEZ BENITEZ, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:04-cr-00006-LMB-1; 1:08-cv-586) Submitted: October 14, 2008 Decided: October 20, 2008 Before KING, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jose Elmer Chavez Benitez, Appellant Pro Se. Rebeca Hidalgo Bellows, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jose Elmer Chavez Benitez seeks to appeal the district court s order motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues denying a relief certificate § 2253(c)(1) (2000). issue absent constitutional prisoner a constitutional of substantial right. jurists his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 appealability. (2000) 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not satisfies reasonable on 28 this would claims by showing U.S.C. the the denial § 2253(c)(2) standard find of that district by of (2000). demonstrating any assessment court is a A that of debatable the or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. court is likewise debatable. 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 Benitez has not made the requisite showing. motion for appeal. legal before a certificate Accordingly, we deny Benitez s of appealability and dismiss the We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials 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.