UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-6306
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ANDRES WILFREDO TORRIENTE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Timothy M. Cain, District
Judge. (7:07-cr-01363-TMC-2)
Submitted: July 19, 2012 Decided: July 23, 2012
Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Andres Wilfredo Torriente, Appellant Pro Se. Leesa Washington,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Andres Wilfredo Torriente seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West
Supp. 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) (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 Torriente has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly,
we deny Torriente’s 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
2
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3