Case Name: Mario Ramos HINOJOS, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. BUSH, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-11-03
Citations: 670 F. App'x 123
Docket Number: No. 15-6867
Parties: Mario Ramos HINOJOS, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. BUSH, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 670
Pages: 123–123

Head Matter:
Mario Ramos HINOJOS, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. BUSH, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 15-6867
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: October 21, 2016
Decided: November 3, 2016
Mario Ramos Hinojos, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Alphonso Simon, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Mario Ramos Hinojos, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (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 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 relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition 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 Hinojos 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