Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Xiomaro E. HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-03-03
Citations: 169 F. App'x 772
Docket Number: No. 05-7544
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Xiomaro E. HERNANDEZ, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 169
Pages: 772–773

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Xiomaro E. HERNANDEZ, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-7544.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 23, 2006.
Decided: March 3, 2006.
Frank Willard Dunham, Jr., Meghan Suzanne Skelton, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Mark Clayton Grundvig, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Xiomaro E. Hernandez, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order and order on reconsideration denying her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion as well as the court's order denying a certificate of appealability. The orders are not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of her constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are likewise debatable. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED