Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06531/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06531-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Edgar Benitez Hernandez
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6531

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

EDGAR BENITEZ HERNANDEZ, a/k/a Clavo, a/k/a Shadow,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior 

District Judge. (1:10-cr-00223-CMH-1; 1:14-cv-01042-CMH)

Submitted: December 30, 2016 Decided: January 10, 2017

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alan Hideto Yamamoto, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. 

Patricia Marie Haynes, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, 

Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6531 Doc: 25 Filed: 01/10/2017 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Edgar Benitez 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, 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 before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 16-6531 Doc: 25 Filed: 01/10/2017 Pg: 2 of 2