United States of America v. Alexandra Guzman-Beato, a/k/a Sandra

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-7164
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ALEXANDRA GUZMAN-BEATO, a/k/a Sandra,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, Senior District Judge. (1:19-cr-00218-LO-2; 1:20-cv-00859-
LO)
Submitted: March 29, 2024 Decided: April 19, 2024
Before WILKINSON and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Alexandra Guzman-Beato, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Alexandra Guzman-Beato seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief
on her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or
judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). 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 could find the
district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v.
Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (2017). 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.
Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,
484 (2000)).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Guzman-Beato has
not made the requisite showing.* Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and
dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
* We decline to consider Guzman-Beato’s claims that she was unable to effectively
communicate with her trial counsel and that she required an interpreter, which she raises
for the first time on appeal. See In re Under Seal, 749 F.3d 276, 285 (4th Cir. 2014). We
observe, however, that these claims conflict with Guzman-Beato’s sworn statements during
the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing. See United States v. Lemaster, 403 F.3d 216, 221 (4th Cir.
2005).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --