US v. David Perez-Garcia, No. 08-8087 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8087 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DAVID PEREZ-GARCIA, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Lyle E. Strom, Senior District Judge. (3:01-cr-00036-RLV-1; 3:04-cv-00429-LES) Submitted: March 17, 2009 Decided: March 20, 2009 Before TRAXLER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Perez-Garcia, Appellant Pro Se. Gretchen C.F. Shappert, United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: David Perez-Garcia seeks to appeal the district court s order construing his Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(2) motion as a successive 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2008) motion and denying relief. justice or The order is not appealable unless a circuit judge issues a certificate U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). not issue absent constitutional prisoner a satisfies reasonable jurists constitutional 28 this would claims by appealability. 28 A certificate of appealability will substantial right. of showing U.S.C. the the denial § 2253(c)(2) standard find of by that district (2006). demonstrating any assessment court is of a A that of the 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 Perez-Garcia has not made the requisite showing. certificate dispense of with appealability oral argument and Accordingly, we deny a dismiss because the the appeal. facts and We 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.