US v. Julio Portillo-Sosa, No. 12-6867 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-6867 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JULIO CESAR PORTILLO-SOSA, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:07-cr-00176-REP-1; 3:11-cv-00545-REP) Submitted: September 27, 2012 Decided: October 2, 2012 Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Julio Cesar Portillo-Sosa, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen David Schiller, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Julio Cesar Portillo-Sosa seeks to appeal the district court s order construing his self-styled Motion Under § 1651 for Mandamus Order Relief as a 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion and dismissing it as an unauthorized, successive motion. judge The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or issues a certificate § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). issue absent a of 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right. appealability. showing of the denial 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). of a 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 of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 Cockrell, (2000); (2003). see Miller-El v. 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant s brief. Portillo-Sosa court s does not disposition, See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). challenge the Portillo-Sosa 2 basis has for the forfeited Because district appellate review of the court s order. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.
