UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7027
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
OSCAR HERNANDEZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L.
Voorhees, District Judge. (5:08-cr-00027-RLV-DCK-4; 5:12-cv-
00194-RLV)
Submitted: November 21, 2014 Decided: December 22, 2014
Before KING and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Oscar Hernandez, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant
United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Oscar Hernandez seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) 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)
(2012). 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) (2012). 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 has not made the requisite showing. ∗ Accordingly,
∗
Although the district court failed to give Hernandez
notice under Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.3d 309 (4th Cir. 1975),
our certificate of appealability assessment convinces us that
this omission was harmless.
2
we deny the motion for 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 this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3