Tony Arambula v. Commonwealth of Virginia, No. 11-6606 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6606 TONY ARAMBULA, Petitioner Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Respondent Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, Magistrate Judge. (3:10-cv-00003-MHL) Submitted: July 21, 2011 Before NIEMEYER and Senior Circuit Judge. GREGORY, Decided: Circuit Judges, July 26, 2011 and HAMILTON, Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tony Arambula, Appellant Pro Se. Rosemary Virginia Bourne, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Tony order Arambula denying his reconsideration of seeks Fed. the to R. appeal Civ. district a circuit appealability. justice 28 or U.S.C. P. district 60(b) court s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. unless the order court s motion for dismissing his The order is not appealable judge issues a § 2253(c)(1)(A) certificate (2006); Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). Reid of v. 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). 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 constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. of the Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive petition procedural states constitutional a right. ruling is debatable Slack, debatable, claim 529 of U.S. at the and that denial 484-85. the of We a have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Arambula has not made the certificate dispense of with requisite showing. appealability oral argument and Accordingly, dismiss because 2 the the we deny appeal. facts and a We 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.
