UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-7576
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOSE MANUEL MORALES-HERNANDEZ, a/k/a Christian Morales-Recendez,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Roanoke. Michael F. Urbanski, Chief District Judge. (7:15-cr-00048-MFU-RSB-1;
7:17-cv-81284-MFU-RSB)
Submitted: April 17, 2018 Decided: April 19, 2018
Before WILKINSON and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jose Manuel Morales-Hernandez, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jose Manuel Morales-Hernandez seeks to appeal the district court’s orders
denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and construing his Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(b) motion as a successive and unauthorized § 2255 motion and dismissing it on that
basis. We dismiss in part and affirm in part.
With respect to the first order denying § 2255 relief, this 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, 120
(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 Morales-Hernandez has not made the requisite
showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal in
part.
We affirm the portion of the appeal pertaining to the district court’s dismissal of
Morales-Hernandez’s Rule 60(b) motion for the reasons stated by the district court.
United States v. Morales-Hernandez, Nos. 7:15-cr-00048-MFU-RSB-1; 7:17-cv-81284-
2
MFU-RSB (W.D. Va. Oct. 17, 2017); see United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392 (4th Cir.
2015) (holding that movant need not obtain a certificate of appealability to appeal district
court’s dismissal of a Rule 60(b) motion that court construed as a successive habeas
motion). 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 IN PART;
AFFIRMED IN PART
3