UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-6331
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JOSE MARCIAL RAMOS-HERNANDEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (1:09-cr-00549-JCC-1; 1:12-cv-00788-JCC)
Submitted: July 25, 2013 Decided: August 7, 2013
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jose Marcial Ramos-Hernandez, Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan Keim,
Kyle William Maurer, Lisa Owings, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Karen Ledbetter Taylor, Assistant United States
Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jose Marcial Ramos-Hernandez seeks to appeal the
district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255
(West Supp. 2013) motion. The order is not appealable unless a
circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). 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)
(2006). 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 (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 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.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Ramos-Hernandez has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny his motion for a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
2
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3