UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-7594
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ISRAEL HERNANDEZ-HERNANDEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Glen E. Conrad, Chief
District Judge. (5:07-cr-00063-gec-mfu-12; 5:10-cv-80283-gec-
uu)
Submitted: January 18, 2011 Decided: January 28, 2011
Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Israel Hernandez-Hernandez, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Ray
Wolthuis, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Israel Hernandez-Hernandez seeks to appeal the
district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C.A.
§ 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion. The order is not appealable
unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of
appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (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
Hernandez-Hernandez 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 are adequately presented in the materials
2
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
3