Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Raul Castillo RAMOS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-11-22
Citations: 670 F. App'x 816
Docket Number: No. 16-6863
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Raul Castillo RAMOS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 670
Pages: 816–817

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Raul Castillo RAMOS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-6863
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: November 14, 2016
Decided: November 22, 2016
Raul Castillo Ramos, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Ronald Baldwin, Office of the United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland; James Marton Trusty, Assistant United States Attorney, Washington, D.C., for Ap-pellee.
Before WILKINSON, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Raul Castillo Ramos seeks to appeal the district court's order denying rehef 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. § 2258(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 rehef 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 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies rehef 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Ramos 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