Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hector David PORTILLO, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-06-19
Citations: 474 F. App'x 195
Docket Number: No. 12-6501
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hector David PORTILLO, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 474
Pages: 195–195

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hector David PORTILLO, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-6501.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 14, 2012.
Decided: June 19, 2012.
Hector David Portillo, Appellant Pro Se. Bernard James Apperson, III, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Hector David Portillo seeks to appeal the district court's order treating his motion to amend his original 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2011) motion as a successive § 2255 motion, and dismissing it on that basis. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate of ap-pealability 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, 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 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 Portillo 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.